Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Why Will It End?

The indefatigable Zenster is on a roll.

Have another, on the house.


Author’s note: This is the second of a three part essay dealing with Islamic terrorism and what can be expected regarding Islam’s ultimate fate. These articles are written in memoriam of the 9-11 atrocity’s tenth anniversary and are dedicated to the 3,000 innocent Americans who were murdered on that fateful day.

Why Will it End?

Short answer ― Islam has “unhappy ending” written all over it.

Tragically, for Islam there is no possibility of a happy ending. It has often been said that the only peace which Islam ― famously known as “The Religion of Peace” ― offers anyone is the peace of the grave. Pakistan ― which means “land of the pure” ―provides the best evidence of this in that it is a prototypical Islamic nation intended to mirror the everyday rule of shari’a law. That country’s horrific level of almost daily slaughter and mayhem clearly demonstrates how ― even if Islam were to attain global ascendancy ― the violence and terrorism would never stop.

The Islamic concept of takfir (“impure”), literally assures this in that a more devout Muslim is religiously sanctioned for killing a less pure Muslim. This lack of purity could be interpreted as someone who does not pray all five times a day or consumes food during daylight hours over the course of Ramadan. The possible paths descending into Islamic “impurity” are as numerous as they are varied and it is an ironclad guarantee that Islam will always be torn by internecine violence.

Exacerbating this situation is the West’s collective inability to discern Islam in general and why there is so little hope for it. It echoes the ancient parable about a group of blind men describing an elephant.

The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a tree trunk; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a snake; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a flag; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a spear.

Much to the glee of Muslims everywhere, most Westerners are still a lot like those blind men and the pachyderm. Islam is so voluminous and just sufficiently varied enough that it seems to defy description. This is especially so for the less informed who can but bear shocked witness to the endless discord and bloodshed that pervades the Islamic world. Only after gaining an understanding of Islam’s core doctrines does one obtain adequate perspective such that the elephant finally begins to emerge. The 9-11 atrocity was Western civilization’s first dawning awareness that the Islamic elephant is like a spear.

Islam is all of the above elephantine descriptions. It is a veritable tree trunk of a totalitarian creed whose roots extend over a millennium deep into recorded history. It is also a rope by which unsuspecting cultures have hung themselves many times over were they so foolish or unsuspecting as to disregard Islam’s historic threat. Like the asp which Cleopatra drew to her breast, Islam has routinely slithered away from history’s spotlight as the cause of ruined civilizations, genocides, mass enslavements and untold human suffering which transcend anything Europe or America ever aspired to in their wildest dreams.

Islam also manifests as a flag around which this world’s criminal elements continue to rally under a banner of religiously sanctioned murder, rape, pedophilia, looting and thieving which, terrorism aside ― as if that was even possible ― fills police blotters and drains global coffers with an almost enviable consistency unmatched by all but the most accomplished career politicians. Like any wall, Islam continually and everywhere builds enclaves which exclude unbelievers within their own domains and barricades Muslims from influences both external and even the threat of internal “westernization” that just as often sees young Muslim women murdered by their own families in so-called “honor killings”.

Last but, most certainly, not least is the way that Islam is like a spear:

Islamic hijra has thrust Muslims deep within Western civilization only to see them infect every last institution with their steady subversion of Constitutional rights and basic liberties. Hackneyed cries of “racism” and “Islamophobia” ― as if a fear of Islam could ever be irrational ― are trotted out in response to every legitimate criticism of Islam; even as Muslims set about stifling free speech and freedom of expression around the world. At this spear’s sharp end are the over over 17,000 deadly terrorist attacks that have happened since the 9-11 atrocity.

Compounding all of this havoc are the Islamic “principles” of kitman and taqiyya. They amount to religiously sanctioned deceit and outright lying. As if this were not bad enough, the situation is further exacerbated by Mainstream Media’s adamant refusal to provide accurate and unbiased reporting about Islam’s seditious goal of toppling Constitutional democracies throughout the West.

Islam remains a predatory entity that has not been able to establish any self-sustaining degree of industry or technology for almost a millennium. It has relied upon piracy and looting for nearly the entire span of its existence. Even now the MME (Muslim Middle East) is heavily reliant upon foreign engineering and industrial facilities management in order to further develop and maintain its petroleum extraction operations. If the MME did not have access to this Western technology and was obliged to invent it from scratch, all of their oil would still be in the ground, even today.

One immense irony is that ― despite Islam’s aspirations for a global caliphate ― it is unhealthy for too many unbelievers to be converted into Muslims. Once this happens, the jizya (“poll tax”) can no longer be collected, nor can possessions, businesses or estates be confiscated so readily. There have already occurred phases in Islamic history where further conversion of natives living in occupied lands was discouraged as it interfered with the appropriation of wealth that is central to financing more jihad. It is also vital to remember that any refusal to pay the jizya is punishable by immediate death.

Conversely, there is a twin principal to jizya known as hijra which derives from the Arabic word for “migration” or “flight”. In this case, it is a that strategy involves flooding Muslim immigrants into those Western nations which cannot be overcome militarily. Displaying a regular pattern of behavior, these new arrivals ― in strict accord with Islamic law ― refuse to assimilate or integrate and form exclusively Muslim enclaves while gradually instituting shari’a law whenever possible.

This form of demographic warfare is commonly known as “stealth” or “soft” jihad and it is the strategy of choice for many within Islam who seek to conquer the West. In fact, there are Muslims who condemn the late Osama bin Laden for having prematurely tipped Islam’s hand with the 9-11 atrocity along with other subsequent terrorist attacks in Bali, Madrid, Beslan and London; preferring, instead, the gradual overthrow of indigenous cultures through demographic displacement.

This is nothing other than a process of colonization and it is reflected in how non-Muslims are routinely driven out of these enclaves through threats of violence, boycotts and extortion. Furthermore, when a sufficient population density is attained, even visiting non-Muslims are subjected to physical assault and threats of violence should they stray into one of these “no-go zones”. Due to Islamic polygamy, such population densities arrive far sooner than typical demographics for the host nations involved.

Once established, there begins a process of draining financial support from local or central government. This is in addition to criminal predation upon surrounding neighborhoods in the form of robbery, theft and extortion. Due to purdah ― the confinement and isolation of Muslim women ― typically there is a surge in the pimping, sexual assault and rape of non-Muslim women in areas around these enclaves. Minors are especially vulnerable to this because of how Islam regards Mohammad’s marriage to his six year-old child bride, Aisha, as a model of perfect conduct. Central to any understanding of Islam is that this entire process is one of obtaining tribute (jizya) from unbelievers.

This tribute is regarded as being their automatic due in that Muslims consider themselves to be the world’s Master Race. A proper understanding of Islam cannot be had without recognizing this one central point. Augmenting this process of encroachment are other criminal activities such a drug dealing and establishing businesses with the strict aim of underreporting income to evade taxes. All of these activities result in a disproportionate consumption of taxpayer monies even while shirking anything remotely approaching their own fair share of contribution to the tax base. Again, this overconsumption of taxpayer monies is regarded as a form of extracting tribute and nothing else.

To illustrate just how corrosive this process of hijra is, we shall examine the huge influx of “refugees” arriving at Italy’s tiny island of Lampedusa. To date, more than 50,000 have landed, the vast majority of them being Muslims of North and Central African origin. A little “cocktail napkin” math will quickly demonstrate the impact of these “immigrants” and their colonization of Europe.

Without including the cost of erecting or furnishing shelters for these 50,000 individuals, just the processing cost per person easily approaches €1,000. This processing cost, multiplied by 50,000 suddenly gyrates into €50 million. Remember, no food costs, utilities, security or health care expenses are factored into maintenance of the refugee centers. This is just the paperwork costs, including the salaries of those bureaucrats who process these “refugees”.

Once released into the Schengen Agreement countries of Europe, these individuals are free to apply for social benefits, subsidized housing and also to receive medical treatment. In some countries such subsidies easily approach €30,000 per year. If 50,000 “immigrants” receive just €30,000 per year in combined benefits that sum represents €1.5 billion in social service outlays annually. This disregards the fact that such newcomers are often chronically unemployable and ― as is too often the case with Muslims ― voluntarily illiterate, refusing to even learn the host country’s language so as to reduce any chance of assimilation or integration.

None of this addresses the gigantic outlays related to apprehending, prosecuting and incarcerating the criminal elements amongst these “refugees”. Throughout Europe, Muslims are disproportionately represented in rape, violent crime and imprisonment statistics. The expense of this criminality reaches into extra billions of Euros per year and does not cover property damage, victim rehabilitation and other ancillary expenses. Nor does this speak to the same criminal practices and consequences resulting from ostensibly legal immigration into Europe by tens of millions of Muslims over the past few decades.

Another relatively hidden yet devastating factor lies in how Muslims remain the world’s largest group that practices consanguineous marriage, typically to first cousins. Studies in Great Britain reveal that Pakistani immigrants ― some of the most dedicated practitioners of consanguineous marriage ― are up to thirteen times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive disorders. Due to this preference in marriage practices, Muslims experience some of the highest birth defect rates in the entire world.

Try to imagine the disproportionate drain on taxpayer funded hospitals and outpatient services that these deformed, retarded and immunologically compromised children pose to Western societies. Again, this is merely one more way of extracting tribute from an already financially hemorrhaging West. Far more sinister are studies that indicate how these retarded children often are prime candidates to be used in carrying out bomb vest attacks in MME countries. How soon before that tactic is adopted here?

All of this represents an unparalleled Islamic encroachment upon Western civilization unknown since the Moorish occupation of pre-colonial era Spain. This invasion by Islam will continue unabated until the West manifests sufficient political will to reject how Muslims march under false religious colors. Long ago, Europe threw off the shackles of emerging Christian theocracy. How then, is it that Islam’s own brand of hideously blatant theocracy cannot be named for what it most clearly is?

If there is no separation of church and state, it’s not a religion, it’s a state.

Theocracy of any stripe is the penultimate enemy of human liberty and freedom. Among all forms of governance it has the absolute worst historic track record and is unrivaled for its death tolls. Why so few are willing to rip the mask from Islam’s putative status as a religion and label it as the tyrannous political ideology that it obviously is remains one of the most puzzling questions in recent years.

Equally astonishing is the almost total lack of acrimony being show towards Islam despite innumerable terrorist atrocities and its near total violation of human rights as we know them. Mainstream Media’s own conspiracy of silence regarding this constant affront to civilization allows Islam to punch well above its weight and duck the sound drubbing that it so richly deserves. The neglect of this much needed retaliation bodes ill for, not just the West, but Islam as well.

The longer that this farce is allowed to play out, the higher that the stakes become. No better example of this exists than the imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran. Should this be allowed to happen, it will go down in history as the single greatest strategic military blunder of this new century. Regardless of its Shi’ite swaddling, Iran is the modern face of political Islam replete with sponsorship of international terrorism, genocidal doctrine, abject gender apartheid and the destruction of jahiliyya (pre-Islamic) antiquities. Iran embodies Islamic theocracy writ large and is a pluperfect example of what to expect from any nation that thoroughly embraces political Islam.

Furthermore, there is no possible way for Islam to accept the West’s primacy of manmade law. It flies in the face of shari’a which has been handed down by Allah and cannot be countermanded. More so, any such acceptance of democracy would diminish the dominance and validity of shari’a law, something which has always been punishable by death. Furthermore, the prosperity of Western civilization represents a direct threat to Islam. Difficult as it is to imagine, the benisons of modern industrialization are regarded by some within Islam as being toxic to jihad and Islam’s aspirations of establishing a global caliphate.

There are even Muslim religionists who declare that prosperity is bad for Islam. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda both viewed the comfort and stability of Western-induced prosperity as a potent distraction that could make Muslims stray from the path of jihad.

What [deceased second in al Qaeda command] Al-Ayyeri sees now is a "clean battlefield" in which Islam faces a new form of unbelief. This, he labels "secularist democracy." This threat is "far more dangerous to Islam" than all its predecessors combined. The reasons, he explains in a whole chapter, must be sought in democracy's "seductive capacities." This form of "unbelief" persuades the people that they are in charge of their destiny and that, using their collective reasoning, they can shape policies and pass laws as they see fit. That leads them into ignoring the "unalterable laws" promulgated by God for the whole of mankind, and codified in the Islamic shariah (jurisprudence) until the end of time.

The goal of democracy, according to Al-Ayyeri, is to "make Muslims love this world, forget the next world and abandon jihad . "If established in any Muslim country for a reasonably long time, democracy could lead to economic prosperity, which, in turn, would make Muslims "reluctant to die in martyrdom" in defense of their faith.
[emphasis added]

This is one of the few reasonable explanations for why Muslim majority nations continue to be among the most undeveloped and technologically backward lands on earth. Poverty and deprivation are used as levers to drive jihad. Envy and jealousy are converted into hatred in order to blame the West for Islam’s manifold shortcomings. If further proof is needed, a cursory glance at Israel tells the entire story. It, too, was once arid and under-populated but in just a handful of decades has become an agricultural paradise, technological powerhouse and bastion of functional democracy amid a sea of Arab tyrannies.

As Winston Churchill noted about Islam, “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.” This is why it is foredoomed to failure. Islam’s obsession with, and glorification of, death is just one signifier among many that herald its eventual demise. The harsh penalties and frequent resort to amputation or capital punishment all serve to belie Islam as “the religion of peace”. The vast majority of genocides, conflicts and outright wars being fought today are because of Islam and MME borders that literally drip with blood. Also few, if any, Muslim majority nations are not on record as severe violators of human rights.

The reputation of Muslims as predatory criminals and intensely parasitic occupiers all combines into a damning indictment of Islam. Its presence on earth only promises increased conflict, more atrocities, new genocides and unwarranted diversions of wealth that could better serve far more deserving causes. Finally, Islam is assembling too many enemies too fast to where they cannot be expected to keep pursuing their own petty quarrels instead of addressing the overarching threat of jihad. The complete and total inability of Islam to coexist with any legitimate faith or other culture presages a day when its numerous victims will band together in pursuit of an ultimate victory.

That is why it will end.


Part I: “When Will it End?”

Part II, “How Will it End?” follows.

41 comments:

Rex Dyer said...

Wow. Why don't you tell me what you really think?

Glad you're back.

Jolie Rouge said...

Concise, this is blog pamphleteering at its best.

Zenster said...

Thank you, Rex Dyer.

Jolie Rouge: Concise, this is blog pamphleteering at its best.

I deeply appreciate your kind words, Jolie Rouge (Rogue?). A lot of effort went into this essay and it is my hope that the information contained therein will serve as "power tools" for those who hope to change minds about Islam.

This is how the counterjihad will be fought. As the Baron noted, we cannot even walk onto the MSM's tilted playing field without conceding some part of their perverted agenda.

Better to do it this way and change one mind at a time.

Jesterhead45 said...

So basically, the logical conclusion of islam is the following should its dream of world domination ever come about.

First it would be competing caliphates facing off against each other, than leader vs. leader, than sect vs. sect, than race vs. race, tribe vs. tribe, cousins vs. cousins until only a single heavily inbreded soul is left to celebrate their hollow victory on a barren earth over enemies that once lived within the same household as them.

Mehridin said...

The radical muslim and the so-called moderate muslim are in fact in a symbiotic relationship with each other. They are two of a kind piece, in contrary to what the general opinion seems to be. People think that there are different sorts of Islam. The truth is that they are both the same, but with different functionality. The radical needs the moderate, just as the moderate needs the radical. The moderate needs the radical to be _Islam_ the way _Islam_ was intended to be. A nomadic ideology spread by the sword. The main task of the radical is to enforce and spread the word of the prophet, maintaining the true core values of Islam. These are the ones you see in universities and recruiting openly, and aggressively. The moderate needs the radical to both maintain Islam's core functions and maybe more importantly, recruiting. The Radical however, needs the moderate for cover. The radical knows that without the cover of the moderate, he would not survive for long enough to do any of his tasks. The moderate provides cover for the radical, by giving the impression that their ideology and mission is peaceful, and in a sense give the radicals the _benefit of the doubt_. It is a vital function for keeping the radical alive, so that the radical is able to do _his_ job; just as his job is important for the moderate for the above mentioned reason. Imagine Islam in our western societies today without the moderates to give the radicals cover? They would exist for a day. If they did, they would be gone the next.

So when people talk about so-called moderates, and radicals, be aware that they are in fact exactly the same. They represent the same, but they have different functions. They _are_ the same.

Mehridin said...

Oh and great essay. I have to read the second half of the second, plus the third tomorrow. Have a good night! (or day as it probably will be when you read this ;)

Zenster said...

Jesterhead45: First it would be competing caliphates facing off against each other, than leader vs. leader, then sect vs. sect, then race vs. race, tribe vs. tribe, cousins vs. cousins until only a single heavily inbred soul is left to celebrate their hollow victory on a barren earth over enemies that once lived within the same household as them.

As they say in defense industry circles: Close enough for government work.

Congratulations, Jesterhead45, you have quite aptly summarized the sort of, already extant and continuing, internecine violence that would only be exacerbated by Islam's global ascendancy.

Tellingly, your description deals only with Muslim-on-Muslim violence and not the vicious mass slaughter of unbelievers awaiting such global supremacy. Yet, the truth of your words bears out the magnitude of brutality that even Muslims must expect from any triumph of their own barbarous creed.

As you alluded to, there is an ancient Arabic saying that goes thus:

"I against my brother, I and my brother against our cousin, my brother and our cousin against the neighbors, all of us against the foreigner."

Imagine this sort of entrenched intramural ― and, before that, intermural ― conflict magnified on a global scale wherein Muslims, endowed by the ascendancy of a global caliphate, enjoyed the maximum prerogatives of power.

Then, just try to imagine how the Infidels would be sorted out first; and what type of treatment could be expected from Muslim "true believers" that drool over the prospect of settling their own interminable family feuds about how someone's Uncle Omar unforgettably cheated his way to winning a quarter-final camel race some three centuries ago.

Islam epitomizes a proverbial "cock on the dunghill". Perched atop its heap of stinking manure, it crows with unabashed pride about the scorched and unproductive earth of lands it has subdued by catastrophic enslavement and total genocide.

Finally, Jesterhead45, your mention of how Islam is "inbred" (via consanguineous marriage), remains a point that is most telling of all. This perpetuation, if not celebration, of recessive disorders ― such as retardation and physical deformity or compromised immunology ― only serves to validate why Islam deserves no place as an honest actor upon the world stage.

Jesterhead45 said...

Zenster

The only reason why I did not bring up non-muslims vs muslims, is because its known how non-muslims would / still fare under islamic rule, where the latter would / are initially living off the wealth and knowledge of the people they have either invaded or conquered in a muslim-variation of the current wellfare state until over time non-muslims would quickly find it expedient to convert to islam when the oppotunity arrives with only a few holding out and any non-muslim knowledge qradually becoming watered-down than forgotten completely.

When you think about it, perhaps the current financial crisis is a good thing considering the alternative if things carry on the way they are, though somehow I do not immediately see islam being blamed when events unfold.

Instead, the need to find common ground with islam will lead the current non-islamic sharia-aligning establishment to whip up Jew-hatred as a way for them to maintain the fiction of multiculturalism and other rotten values they promote, with the groundwork already being setup for such a scenario.

The barren earth recalls an arabic saying I once read in an article at IBA years ago, about how the closer one goes into the desert the closer one will come to finding "god" though the exact words escape me.

I often wonder if there is a section of islam-supporting non-muslims (perhaps the extinctionist misanthropic types), who are long-term minded enough to see the ultimate logical conclusion of islam (whose self-destructive and dysgenic nature serves the interests of rabid enviromentalists in many ways), which reads almost like a bad movie or novel that features a depressing end where humanity goes out with a whimper or devolves into warped inbreded parody of itself leading to the same end as has been proven thoughout history.

Sagunto said...

Hi Zen -

Good to see your great essay up for discussion. This presents me with another opportunity to focus on a tiny intermezzo this spirited and inspired contribution could do without (about "theocracy"). I won't address the implicit historical comparison of the terror of Islam with some unspecific and rather vague Christian "theocracy", but instead pose 3 simple questions. Hope you'll be so kind as to provide a detailled response, to all tree of them, if possible.

The quote:

"Long ago, Europe threw off the shackles of emerging Christian theocracy."

My 3-part question:

a)
How long ago was that exactly? Mention of a certain century would suffice.

b)
What part of Europe, i.e. which nations exactly are you taking as a "pars pro toto" here? England? The Low Countries?

c)
What specific type of Christianity, or Christian theocracy, are you thinking about?

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

bewick said...

Good series of essays Zenster. Enjoyed them.
The idea of demographic “stealth jihad” is so so true. The effect is exponential/logarithmic and seriously dangerous, and expensive , to the West
That is that 1 Muslim immigrant quickly becomes 2 by importation of a spouse and very quickly 6 or so by higher birth rates. Within 20 years that then becomes 14 by importation of spouses for the kids. Another 20 years………..
Even more, by the suicidal Western concept of “family re-unification”, since brothers, sisters, parents, and even whole villages move to the West on seriously questionable grounds.
This concept is akin to pyramid selling and quickly becomes a serious drain on resources and infrastructure. The UK in 2011 is not the UK of 1960 that I remember.
The unemployment rate amongst immigrants (most are Muslim) in the UK is stated by Government statistics as 50% for men and 75% for women. That DOES NOT include Muslims born here. It DOES include hard working eastern Europeans so I’d expect the Muslims to have greater unemployment and reliance on our over generous welfare benefits.
I have used this same principle (pyramid/exponential/logarithmic) to involve my well educated friends and relatives. In the UK it is “not done” to talk politics, religion, and such in the Pub or with friends and relatives. I eventually bit the bullet and introduced them to GoV and other sources of information. I did this with some trepidation. Seems that I did the right thing since GoV and others confirm what they suspected but dare not say. They most certainly never had their fears confirmed by the MSM or politicians.
I urge others to do the same. You may lose friends or fall out with relatives (I didn’t) but if their views are so different from yours then why care?
I would take issue with you on 2 points.
Your view seems to be that only Muslims seek to bleed western states of cash. Particularly via welfare benefits, and tax evasion. Well in the UK we have many parasitic indigenous people claiming every welfare benefit available. It isn’t just those or Muslims though. In one respect it is a feature of those originating from the Indian Sub Continent so is also cultural. I know Sikhs who do much the same. They seriously believe that the money in the till is theirs and that income tax is not payable in India. They use tax evasion (illegal) and tax avoidance (legal). A rich Mother claims every benefit available and is building a mansion in India. In line with cultural norms her husband left everything to the sons when he died so she is officially destitute.
My second gripe is about your use of “conventional war”. I may have misunderstood your point and don’t have the time to revisit. So sorry if so.
The idea of “conventional war” – where uniformed armies face one another across a defined battlefield probably ended in 1918. Civilians may well have suffered via collateral damage and the rampages of victorious armies in all ages.
In 1939 that changed. Civilians became legitimate targets. The Geneva Convention, I think still, makes it legal to execute un-uniformed combatants.
In Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya Western troops have their hands tied behind their backs by ridiculous “rules of engagement” which prevent them killing or apprehending un-uniformed combatants the minute they drop their weapons.
We are NOT fighting anything like a conventional war in any of these arenas and even less so with civilian terrorists in the West.
We need to renegotiate the Geneva Convention, which Islamists don’t honour anyway, or kick it into touch and fight the wars with a modern view of what is and is not acceptable. The Islamists must be told to either don a uniform (pyjamas don’t count) or die whether or not they just dropped their weapon.
Just a few thoughts.

Zenster said...

Jesterhead45: The barren earth recalls an Arabic saying I once read in an article at IBA years ago, about how the closer one goes into the desert the closer one will come to finding "god" though the exact words escape me.

The Arabic proverb you mention goes thus: "The further you go into the desert, the closer you come to God".

Which, given Islam's obsessions with piety and death, bears out rather well.

The further you go into the desert, the greater your chances are of dying and meeting your maker of choice. I'm sure that they mean it to be interpreted on some "higher" spiritual level but Islam and death go hand in hand and that's quite enough for me.

Also, Jesterhead45, your summary regarding intermural and intramural Islamic violence was spot on. Thank you for that contribution.

Zenster said...

Mehridin, your summary of the symbiosis between radical and moderate Muslims is worthy of an essay of its own. I'm unsure of why I managed to omit such points in my essay but there you have it.

Please consider cobbling up your observations into a one or two page monograph and see if Gates of Vienna will post it for general consumption. It is very cogent to an improved understanding of Islam and everyone would benefit from it.

Again, thank you for the excellent comment.

Zenster said...

Sagunto: Hope you'll be so kind as to provide a detailled response, to all three of them, if possible.

No I will not, nor shall I participate in helping you to derail this thread for the sake of disputing rather well established historical fact.

You have done this before, much to the ire of Takuan Seiyo, who is someone that I admire and respect rather deeply for his erudition. So please count me out of your quibbling. Do you see anyone else disputing my words?

Think about that, why don't you.

Zenster said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sagunto said...

Hi Zen -

"No I will not, nor shall I participate in helping you to derail this thread.."

It's just too bad, but fair enough, that you refuse to shed some light on a rather obscure claim, you present as fact. May I remind you of the fact that at least one other commenter already expressed online reservations about your statements regarding this "emerging Christian theocracy"? But anyway, like I said, fair enough: you wish to declare some statements you yourself included in this essay to be off limits. That's your call.

I feel some disappointment though, when you jump to the conclusion that I seek to "derail" this thread. Come on, Zen, be a sport, just some questions on a matter we might have different opinions about, that's all.

Then to my honest surprise, or rather, astonishment, you invoke the "ire" of another blogger, apparently dating from some time ago, while only one week passed since you privately asked me to comment on your essay, telling me you'd [quote] "really enjoy my feedback", before offering it online.

I took this task upon me, expecting, no, really looking forward to a fruitful discussion. I regret to say that you have a peculiar way of rewarding my time and effort.

As always, kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Rex Dyer said...

Why can't a condensed version of these essays be turned into pamphlet form and stuffed into the mail boxes of every, for example, working class English household? Every week I get a worthless bundle of garbage stuffed into mine.

If Jehovah's Wintnesses can go door to door and respectfully and politely offer their literature and actively engage with the public, why can't an equally respectful and polite CJ do the same?

I'm just trying to think of ways to by pass the MSM and get the word out. Blogs are great, but people have to know about them.

Egghead said...

Hey, Zenster: You have to have a hard shell to be a turtle around here - by which I mean, take your "intellectual" knocks like a man. It's the difference between being a commenter and an editorialist.

A commenter has a lower bar to "prove" assertions whereas an editorialist is assumed to be a subject matter expert who is prepared to cite sources.

And, your random-referenced appeal to authority is irrelevant. Last that I heard, Takuan Seiyo maintained that women should be denied the vote - as does Ann Barnhardt - which causes me as a woman to doubly question anything that they have to say on other issues.

In any case, is it that you will not provide evidence - or that you cannot provide evidence - about Sagunto's fair game questions about the ideas embedded in your oh-so-casual swipe at Christianity - ideas that also underpin the reasoning of atheist leftists who import Islam to our fair Western shores under the idea that ALL religions are equally bad?!

Zenster said...

Sagunto: Come on, Zen, be a sport, just some questions on a matter we might have different opinions about, that's all.

Tell you what? Instead of trying to smear me as being unsporting, why don't you do the heavy lifting for a change and prove what you tacitly assert? Namely, that there was never any "emerging Christian theocracy" in Europe's early history.

I am not going to waste my time with niggling little disputes which divert attention away from this board's central theme of fighting Islam.

Zenster said...

What part of Papal States do both of you not understand? Yeesh!

Egghead said...

Zenster: I have to go out, but I will be commenting more late tonight. Please realize that I admire you, but these criticisms of your ideas or expressions are fair game. :)

An unexamined life/essay is not worth living/reading - or something like that. :)

We CANNOT all just nod our heads in approval. What good would that be to anyone?!

Mehridin said...

Thank you Zenster. All observations are good observations, like you say. It is important to understand the beast. I would very much like to gather together some thoughts, like you suggested. I'm not used to writing a whole lot, but I could use the practice, I suppose.

Anyways, I wanted to add my view on some of what you are discussing.

Islam has what is called Usul-al-fiqh, "roots of the law"; a centuries-long interpretation of the Hadith and the Qur'an. This is the basis of the Islamic judicial system. The equivalent does not exist in early or late Christianity. Christianity was able to go through several reforms, I guess mainly or at least partly because it does not conflict with other forms of government, like Islam does. Islam seeks to directly _replace_ the functions of democracy.

Good night all!

Zenster said...

Egghead: Please realize that I admire you, but these criticisms of your ideas or expressions are fair game.

Quoting out of context, character smears and attaching wholly contrived conspiracy theories to my work do not constitute "criticisms".

They are dishonest argumentative ploys and I expect better from someone of your intelligence.

Zenster said...

Mehridin: Thank you Zenster.

You are more than welcome.

I would very much like to gather together some thoughts, like you suggested.

I urge you to do so on the strongest possible terms. It seems as though you have some real in depth knowledge of Islam and that, especially in the relatively uneducated West, is priceless.

I'm confident that an essay by you concerning the symbiosis (actually interdependence), between supposedly "radical" (actually just devout) Muslims and their ostensibly "moderate" coreligionists would be warmly welcomed here at GoV.

Franklin said...

No need to debate the content of this essay for sure. It is concise and dead on!

Respectfully, Franklin

Egghead said...

Zenster: Touchy! Touchy! Of course, I disagree with your characterization of my thoughts.

Atheist comment: Nobody cares either way except you and me - and God. :)

Conspiracy theory comment: The idea that the left equates all religions as a philosophical cover to import Islam is well-known. Your assertion that "Theocracy of any stripe is the penultimate enemy of human liberty and freedom" sounds the same as any multicultural leftist liberal.

Nazi comment: I was typing too fast trying to get out the door. Would change it, but the comment is clearly understandable in context. Basic criticism holds. Modern atheistic governments trump theocracies for total murders in the shortest time - to date.

"Communism has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the near 30,000,000 of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and the rebellions it provoked. But there is a larger lesson to be learned from this horrendous sacrifice to one ideology. That is that no one can be trusted with power."

Murder by Communism

Egghead said...

"Our century is noted for its absolute and bloody wars. World War I saw nine-million people killed in battle, an incredible record that was far surpassed within a few decades by the 15 million battle deaths of World War II. Even the number killed in twentieth century revolutions and civil wars have set historical records. In total, this century's battle killed in all its international and domestic wars, revolutions, and violent conflicts is so far about 35,654,000."

"Yet, even more unbelievable than these vast numbers killed in war during the lifetime of some still living, and largely unknown, is this shocking fact. This century's total killed by absolutist governments already far exceeds that for all wars, domestic and international. Indeed, this number already approximates the number that might be killed in a nuclear war."

...

"Absolutism is not only many times deadlier than war, but itself is the major factor causing war and other forms of violent conflict. It is a major cause of militarism. Indeed, absolutism, not war, is mankind's deadliest scourge of all."

War Isn't This Century's Biggest Killer

Egghead said...

"IMPORTANT NOTE: Among all the democide estimates appearing on this website, and in the table on the lower right, some have been revised upward. I have changed that for Mao's famine, 1958-1962, from zero to 38,000,000. And thus I have had to change the overall democide for the PRC (1928-1987) from 38,702,000 to 76,702,000. Details here."

"I have changed my estimate for colonial democide from 870,000 to an additional 50,000,000. Details here."

"Thus, the new world total: old total 1900-1999 = 174,000,000. New World total = 174,000,000 + 38,000,000 (new for China) + 50,000,000 (new for Colonies) = 262,000,000."

"Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century. Finally, given popular estimates of the dead in a major nuclear war, this total democide is as though such a war did occur, but with its dead spread over a century."

20th Century Democide

Zenster said...

Egghead: Your assertion that "Theocracy of any stripe is the penultimate enemy of human liberty and freedom" sounds the same as any multicultural leftist liberal.

Your argument does not hold water. Otherwise Liberals would be screaming bloody murder about Islamic theocracy; a topic that they, rather curiously, are deafeningly silent about.

You have also yet to disprove my assertion that Theocracy is the worst threat to human liberty and freedom. Soviet Communism collapsed under its own weight in less than a century and killed some 20,000,000.

Islamic theocracy has been going on for almost one and a half millennia during which it has slaughtered almost 300,000,000. There is no comparing these numbers.

"I have changed my estimate for colonial democide from 870,000 to an additional 50,000,000. Details here."

That is a most conspicuous shift of nearly two orders of magnitude. It sounds as if the author has a colonial axe to grind.

Finally, you have yet to retract your false accusation framing me as an Atheist. Feel free to do so at any time. Such intentionally wrongful characterization is indecorous, to say the least.

Dymphna said...

I haven't been following closely, but it would appear that this comment thread is beginning to skew sideways.

Of course, Zenster did open the door by bringing in a mention of theocracy "of any stripe"...which allows long disquisitions on some aspects of atheism, agnosticism, etc., when the topic had been Islam's supremacist utopian and totalitarian political system.

Islam's "theology" is actually jurisprudence, not ethics or morality. The Koran is about how to take over the world.

And there is indeed a successful theocracy: Israel. It doesn't pretend to be otherwise. It is a democratically-based theocracy. Since it appears to work for them, I have no complaints. The Arabs in Israel have it better than they would in any Arab country, including the Arab-Israeli Christians.

Are they second-class citizens? Sure. Every single country in the world has "second class" groups. In fact, the Sephardic Jews in Israel probably have a rougher go than the Ashkenazi Jews. But that's just a guess since I don't know that much about the system.

But there's your working theocracy, Zenster.

And if we could return to the main topic, that would be good.

Zenster said...

Dymphna: But there's your working theocracy, Zenster.

That Israel, qua Israel, survives at all might make it worthy of the label, "working theocracy". However, Israel continues to exhibit completely suicidal tendencies that leads one to wonder just how functional it really is.

Of course, any comparison to its gibbering idiot Arab neighbors makes Israel look like a beacon of functionality but that is a study in contrasts.

Unaddressed by any of this is the immense hypocrisy of the global Jewish population outside of Israel routinely supporting unlimited immigration even as they also support their own ethno-state. As in:

ETHNO-STATE FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE.

Consequently, it is difficult to avoid the feeling that Israel is founded upon a principal that its own diaspora contradict everywhere else. That summons up some very serious doubts.

Notably, even you yourself feel obliged to qualify Israel as a "democratically-based theocracy", which ― false flag Arab "democracies" like Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt or Iran notwithstanding ― largely is a contradiction of terms.

This is especially so in that Islamic countries cannot use their so-called "democratic" apparatus to alter shari'a law. Therefore, they are "true theocracies" and I continue to challenge anyone to step forward and disprove that such theological absolutism ― in its least qualified sense ― is not the biggest enemy of human liberty and freedom.

And if we could return to the main topic, that would be good.

I could not agree with you more. Thank you.

Zenster said...

Dymphna: Islam's "theology" is actually jurisprudence, not ethics or morality.

A very worthwhile distinction. Religion really has nothing to do with it save as a mantle of camouflage that conceals the Islamic sword until it is too late.

Egghead said...

Dymphna: Realizing the TRUTH of my arguments and hoping that would shine through, I had bowed out of this thread. BUT, considering that Zenster continues to boldly "challenge" someone to disprove his assertion that "theological absolutism ― in its least qualified sense ― is not the biggest enemy of human liberty and freedom," I feel that, in the interest of fairness, I should be permitted to respond to his faulty logic in his reply to me.

Zenster:

- Liberals are scared to death of Islam and only criticize people who are "easy" and won't violently murder them and their families.

- You falsely compare the murder statistics for 70 years of the U.S.S.R. which is ONE country to 1,400 years of ALL Muslim nations in the world.

- You also ignore the fact that non-theologically-ruled Western nations are arming Muslim nations with advanced military technology AND importing Muslims into Western nations. When those Muslims begin to murder, who will GOD find to be responsible: non-theological or theological nations?! BOTH!

- My point is that godless modern Marxist governments have been the most efficient murderers of humans.

- Dr. R.J. Rummel, the author of the website that I cite, has a Ph.D. in Political Science and has been frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. His website provides scholarly sources for his statistics.

- What are your qualifications beyond your personal interest? What are your scholarly sources that you have STILL omitted to provide?

- Your braggadocio is NOT evidence!

Zenster said...

Egghead: Liberals are scared to death of Islam and only criticize people who are "easy" and won't violently murder them and their families.

And for that reason we should allocate these abject, sniveling cowards an iota of moral authority? All the more reason to dismantle their political apparatus with almost the same speed we delegate to destroying Islam.

You falsely compare the murder statistics for 70 years of the U.S.S.R. which is ONE country to 1,400 years of ALL Muslim nations in the world.

It's all about the ummah. It has always been all about the ummah. It will always be about the ummah until Islam is taken apart at the seams.

Without the ummah jihad, Islamic terrorism and the Muslim terrorists themselves would neither exist nor would they have a sea of ostensibly "moderate" coreligionists to swim in. We are comparing entities, not individual nations.

Go ahead and lump together the Soviet Union and Communist China, they still fall far short of Islam's grisly high water mark.

You also ignore the fact that non-theologically-ruled Western nations are arming Muslim nations with advanced military technology AND importing Muslims into Western nations.

No I do not. I addressed in my essay the threat of a nuclear armed Iran and the dire ramifications such a thing would pose to the West.

Zenster said...

When those Muslims begin to murder, who will GOD find to be responsible: non-theological or theological nations?!

Neither you nor I or anyone else can possibly answer as to what God might or might not do. Yours is an unanswerable question. Would those governments have anyone to import ― with identical effect ― if Islam didn't exist? Do not murderers bear direct responsibility for their actions? Without Islam would we have even a slight fraction of the slaughter and death going on throughout the world today?

If the governments didn't have their own Socialist agendas against White Christians would Islam desist from stealth jihad or regular jihad?

Islam remains a core component of the dangers we face without which many of those same anti-White Christian elements would not have any sort of lever remotely approaching the puissance of Islam's jihadist threat.

My point is that godless modern Marxist governments have been the most efficient murderers of humans.

If you add in the Second World War's death toll on top of the Holocaust, it comes to some 60 MILLION in just a scant handful of years. The Nazis still win hands down. The Soviet Union and Communist China took much longer to rack up those sort of numbers.

Zenster said...

Dr. R.J. Rummel, the author of the website that I cite, has a Ph.D. in Political Science and has been frequently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

With recipients such as Yasser Arafat ― the grandfather of modern terrorism ― carbon tax swindler Al Gore and, now, de facto Muslim Barrak Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize is a running joke. Hell, Stanley Tookie Williams III the, now executed, co-founder of the Crips street gang was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

What are your scholarly sources that you have STILL omitted to provide?

Here is a link to an interview by Front Page's Jamie Glazov of Bill Warner from the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) who had researched Islam's historic death toll and places it at some 270 MILLION.

Jamie Glazov, Front Page, Bill Warner and CSPI are all well-respected sources within the counterjihad. That figure of TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY MILLION speaks for itself.

Egghead said...

Zenster: Rummel has made this topic his life's work. Read the website.

Countries rules by godless Marxism (as opposed to religious theocracy) have murdered the most people in the last 99 years.

Period.

It is truly scary to think how many people will be murdered as godless Marxism combines forces with theocratic Islam....

Zenster said...

Egghead: It is truly scary to think how many people will be murdered as godless Marxism combines forces with theocratic Islam....

Finally, something that we can agree upon in a wholehearted fashion.

The obscene symbiont entity formed by Liberal Socialism and Islam will countenance, or inspire, human suffering and slaughter on a scale that may well exceed anything previously known to mankind save Islam's own "personal best."

There is also the monstrous possibility that this diabolical alliance might even exceed Islam's own, until now, unsurpassed track record. Such a perverted union could instigate the Muslim holocaust which could see well over ONE BILLION fatalities.

There is no coincidence with respect to Islam's adoration of Hitler. Little do Muslims realize how the mechanized slaughter that they so admire about the Nazis may, instead, be visited upon them in the form of Western civilization's ability to wage industrial-scale warfare.

A very few dozen low-megatonnage, enhanced radiation (Neutron Bomb) warheads could see all life in the entire MME (Muslim Middle East), erased with minimal damage to its general infrastructure or petroleum extraction facilities.

Liberals are enabling this world's Muslim population to have its encounter with such a fate. Remember, Islam wouldn't have it any other way and, apparently, neither would the Liberals.

EscapeVelocity said...

tomes arrrghh!

Anyways, if you can reach people that are hostile to all religion in general and whose biases are tickled by use of the loaded term Theocracy and are beholden to the revisionist history of Western Civilization where Christianity is seen as oppressive and something to overcome. So much the better.

BTW, Spengler just released a new book, How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam is Dying Too). You might like to check it out.

Zenster said...

EscapeVelocity: … the loaded term Theocracy…

How, exactly, is "Theocracy" a "loaded term"? Theocratic rule is an oppressive and anti-liberty form of governance regardless of which religious banner it marches beneath.

Do you actually defend Theocracy as a valid form of government?

Anonymous said...

Wow. Amazing. Truth shall triumph, is the motto written on India's official seal. What Islam is as seen or heard by politicians, and media is not what reality is. Problem is, the world has civilized and understood that we should not insult a belief system. But, the biggest historical lie that has been thrust upon us non believers is, "Islamic Civilization". There is no such thing, there is no contribution of Islam to the world in matters of science, philosophy, astronomy etc. What we consider Islamic Civilization is instead, Persian Civilization and Indian civilization. By copying the material of original inhabitants, and then passing off to Europeans, the history books even today, label the numerals as Arabic numerals, while in Arabs, these numerals are called "Hind" [India/Hindu] numerals.

Indeed I agree with the author, secularism in Islam is Haram and to think that democracy has a place in Islam is fooling oneself. Problem that the world is facing is, how do you disprove the word of God to illiterate followers?

Today there are more non Arabs as muslims than Arabs. And, Quran, the word of God has clearly mentioned that only Arabs are true muslims and official language of Allah is Arabic. Yet many become converts. What is the attraction? Imagine, you tell a person, that they can rape, kill, loot, be violent and God will reward you. Wouldn't the animal in a man come out?

Just like how west contained the Soviet Empire, time has come for the non muslim world to contain this "ism" Islamism.

Anonymous said...

This "Islamic" thing, appears to me, to be nothing more than a stage, for the return of the Son Logos. How could it be anything else?