Christians all over the world were under attack on Christmas Day, mostly by Muslims. Violent episodes occurred in Nigeria, the Philippines, Iraq, and other countries. And Christians weren’t the only religious groups targeted by Muslim bombs — two houses belonging to Shi’ite Muslims were blown up in Baghdad, presumably by Sunni terrorists.In other news, in 2010 for the first time ever China has matched the number of space launches by the United States — fifteen. Meanwhile, health authorities in Britain warn that another flu epidemic is about to begin, and will include the notorious swine flu strain.
To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.
Thanks to Barry Rubin, C. Cantoni, DF, JD, Nilk, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.
Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.
Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.
39 comments:
I've been a regular reader of your blog for a while and fully supporty your mission of exposing the threat of Islamism. However, I don't think clinging to a fading Christinaity is the best way to do so. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are of the same fanatic intolerant stock, even if the first 2 were somewhat touched by modernity. Believe me, living in a theocratic Jewish state or under Christian inquisition wouldn't be better than dhimmihood.
I clicked through the links, but I was unable to find a list of the 15 U.S. launches in 2010. I'd like to see whether that number includes the two Falcon 9 flights carried out by SpaceX, a private company (with some NASA funding).
The second Falcon 9 launch, on Dec. 8, orbited and recovered the Dragon capsule, marking the first time that has been done by a non-governmental entity. If all goes well, Dragon will initially be used to ferry cargo and supplies to the International Space Station, possibly as early as next year. But it has been designed from the beginning to be a manned spacecraft. The goal is to dramatically reduce the cost of access to Earth orbit.
Check out the SpaceX website. There is lots of information about the rockets and spacecraft. Already in the planning stages is the Falcon 9 Heavy booster, which will rank among the most powerful launchers in the world. Click on the Video Gallery button and look for the series of five short videos of Elon Musk conducting a tour of the SpaceX facilities. Everything from the booster engines to the spacecraft were designed and built in-house. That's mighty impressive.
I don't think I've been this excited about a space flight since the Apollo era.
I forgot to mention Bigelow Aerospace, which is working on a system of inflatable space habitat modules. Click through the buttons at the top and see the illustrations under "Orbital Complex Construction". Three Bigelow modules connected will hold up to 12 people, more than the ISS. The skin of the Bigelow habitat is a complex sandwich of materials which is claimed to have better protection against radiation and micrometeoroids than the ISS.
We may be on the cusp of dramatic advances in the utilization of space.
El said 'I've been a regular reader of your blog for a while and fully supporty your mission of exposing the threat of Islamism. However, I don't think clinging to a fading Christinaity is the best way to do so'.
Cant you see that Judaism and Christianity ARE BEING FADED - thats a vital part of the Grand plan
In other news, in 2010 for the first time ever China has matched the number of space launches by the United States — fifteen.
A more important consideration might be that of how much actual groundbreaking design and innovation have been implemented in China's aerospace efforts as opposed to simple imitation or technological recycling.
I wouldn't bet a plugged nickel that China's space capsule technology is much more than "Spam-in-a-can" and most certainly not approaching anywhere near the caliber of America's lunar landing missions.
However lacking in apparent diplomacy El's point may have been, it still brings to bear what I consider to be a primary objective for all genuine spiritual faiths in our modern world.
Should they wish to survive Islam's lethal onslaught, the lot of them had best set about uniting themselves in opposition to global jihad and recognizing the penultimate importance of Freedom of Religion − apart from religion itself, strange as that may sound − and not touting any specific brand thereof.
If this world's genuine faiths − as opposed to Islam's political ideology − cannot arrive at some sort of solidarity with respect to countering Islam's inability to tolerate religious diversity, then pitch in the towel right now because the fight is already over.
This is especially so in light of how little military might is being directed at the issue. A secondary bulwark of moral and spiritual actualization is desperately needed to cast Islam in the dreadful and barbaric light it so thoroughly embodies.
Any lack of unity in such an effort − right down to welcoming this world's Agnostic and Athiest populations into their ranks − places at risk every other form of worthwhile faith.
SO GET ON WITH IT OR GIVE UP RIGHT NOW.
noiseytappet said: "Cant you see that Judaism and Christianity ARE BEING FADED - thats a vital part of the Grand plan"
I am sorry, but I just can't believe in Christianity as I can't believe in fairytales. The root of fanatic intolerance is not Islam. Mohammed just adopted what already had been stated by Prophet Ezra in the Jewish Bible. All the "only true" monotheistic religions of the desert soul pose the same threat. Luckily, Judaism and Christianity more or less lost their direct political power and today look somewhat tame, at least in comparison with Islam.
Nobody "faded" my Christianity, I just renounced it because it seemed to me an utter nonsense. Today, I fight Islamic barbarism, but I would fight with the same zeal fanatic Jews and Christian inquisition if they were not already fading.
El, I think you could do with some more reading, rather than relying on third-hand accounts from leftie journalists and Islamic sources...
First and foremost, the notion that these three religions are of the same nature is false, plain and simple. Judaism and Christianity share the same God, a humanitarian and compassionate God, who wisely directed his followers not to have any other gods.
Islam, on the other hand, is derived from Arab paganism. Allah was the main deity of the Kaaba, along with some 360 other deities, and was worshipped at least nine generations before Muhammad entered the scene and added to it an effective marketing campaign, also known as 'Jihad'.
Whittling down the number of gods, as well as the use of the deceptive misnomer "Abrahamic religions" made Islam have a plausible pretense of being related to Judaism and Christianity, but that does not hold up under scrutiny. Reading the account of Al-Tabari shows the roots of Islam in detail. One may also have fun reading Prophet of Doom, which in elaborate detail documents the origins of Islam.
Attacking Christianity makes no sense in context. Christianity (also by accomodating Hellenism) gave us the notion of universal human rights, private property, the notion of every man being worthy in itself, and ultimately the philosophical foundation for free and democratic societies. It is no coincidence that democracy developed in the Christian world, nowhere else, as did Capitalism.
A root cause for this is simply:
Christianity and Judaism encourages personal responsibility. Islam denies it.
El: Today, I fight Islamic barbarism, but I would fight with the same zeal fanatic Jews and Christian inquisition if they were not already fading.
I would venture that this is because the real root of so much historical tyranny is not just Islam, but the very core component of qur'anic doctrine and so many other intolerant mindsets; namely, THEOCRACY.
Theocracy has always been the eternal enemy of liberty and freedom. It cannot be any other way. Theocracy usurps all free will and dictates the terms of human existence in a manner that instantly disqualifies it as a valid form of human government.
Islam's theocratic nature forms the primary reason that it is so spectacularly evil. The additional baggage of shari'a law just makes it that much more evil. If one examines the pseudo-theocratic nature of Soviet Communism and Nazim, it becomes clear that theocracy has been at the root of so much human misery as to defy description.
I think that several people on this thread have missed the point. In Western societies, there is no such thing as a 'theocracy'. We live under the rule of law (for better or worse). We voted our leaders in, and if we don't like what they do, we can vote them back out again.
Islam demands that Islamic law IS the law of the land. And Mohammad can't be kicked out in disgrace a la Tony Blair. He's in to stay. Big difference.
So until Rowan Williams is either a) actually elected as an MP, or b) people actually start listening to him, I suggest we all remember what we're here for.
As the Americans say, let's keep our eye on the ball.
One other thing: atheists are fond of claiming that no war anywhere, ever, has been fought - let alone won - in the name of atheism.
On the other hand, Christian forces have fought and defeated Islamic armies time and again throughout history.
Which is going to be most helpful now then?
Nick: In Western societies, there is no such thing as a 'theocracy'.
Islam's slow but steady insinuation of shari'a law into Western cultures is putting an end to the truth of that statement.
Perhaps Western societies have been free of theocracy for so many centuries whereby they no longer recognize it but that does not change how Islam continues to gradually impose it wherever Muslims immigrate in large numbers.
… Christian forces have fought and defeated Islamic armies time and again throughout history.
Rowan Williams is a prime example of why Christianity may not be up to the task of slapping down Islam for yet another time.
It is far more likely that success will be achieved by a coalition of several cultures that all refuse to tolerate Islamic jihad and its use of terrorism. India is one solid candidate that might enlist if, for instance, Pakistan was going to be "de-partitioned" after the festivities terminated.
BTW, El is merely being an apologist for Islamic theocracy by claiming moral equivalence with Christian societies.
El, is that intentional or by accident?
Henrik R Clausen said: "BTW, El is merely being an apologist for Islamic theocracy by claiming moral equivalence with Christian societies.
El, is that intentional or by accident?"
Henrik, you have some point in your previous post, but this last one is an unnecessary personal attack. I understand that you have faith in Christian dogma, and I don't mind so long as you don't try to force it down on my throat.
Granted, there are differences between Islam, Judaism and Christianity, but all of them are exclusivist supremacist ideologies. Besides, the dogmatic nonsense, Jesus for me is too much a lefty, so I can't follow him either.
My ideal is much more the classical world, Greece and Rome than Christianity. Christianity was the barbarism that destroyed Rome and now Islam is doing the same with the modern world. Democracy was invented in Athens. (BTW look what Chrsitinaity and Islam made of the Greeks once famous for their talent and open mind.)
Christianity kept Europe in darkness for a milleniuem between ca 400-1400, until Renaissance rediscovered the classical roots. Islam also achieved some glory when they accepted Aristotle and Greek classics. But the fanatics were stronger in Islam that why today Islam is the biggest threat.
With all due respect I don't want to live in under Christian or Jewish rule either if it is taken too seriously.
Christianity is fading, because it contradicts science and common sense. You cant cling to one barbarism too oppose another for too long. Stalin might have been a useful ally against Hitler, but never a trusted friend.
Furthermore if you can choose only between self-proclaimed "truthes" and "words of God", due to its simplicity Islam has more appeal.
Only free minds, in my view with an eye on the classical world, have any chance to defeat Islam.
'With all due respect I don't want to live in under Christian or Jewish rule either if it is taken too seriously.'
Then as I said, if Rowan Williams is ever elected as an MP, or if anyone actually starts taking him seriously, get back to me.
Until then, you might as well stand there saying oh man I really don't like the way Simon Cowell cuts his hair.
'(BTW look what Chrsitianity and Islam made of the Greeks once famous for their talent and open mind.)'
'Only free minds, in my view with an eye on the classical world, have any chance to defeat Islam.'
Have you ever read Machiavelli? You might find him interesting. I'm thinking here of Chapter 15 of 'The Prince' in particular ...
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
From a christian and one of God's sheep dogs.
For me, unlike many, it isn't just a matter of faith. I had an actual God moment in my early 20's, when I was a devout agnostic. I live with the comfort of knowing and not just believing.
As for the Hawaiian Gov. trying to squash the current pResident's COLB, that thing was released long ago.
Here is the image with all the proof La Casa Blanca needs to produce.
El, as you think Christianity and Judaism are no better than Islam, I suggest you go and live in a typical Islamic theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia, piss on or burn a copy of the Koran in the street, and lets see what happens to you. By the way, be free to burn a Bible or Torah in Times Square. The worst you will get is one or two black looks.
Now off to the airport you go on the next Riyadh-bound flight. You're obviously not wanted here.
El, as atheists like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot murdered 155 million poor souls between them simply for the crime of saying "No" to them, or of having an education, and all in the space of 50 or so years, what a 'wonderful' advert for atheism that is.
Now go and get yourself a brain, sunshine.
Spirit Of 1683 said... 18
"El, as you think Christianity and Judaism are no better than Islam, I suggest you go and live in a typical Islamic theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia, piss on or burn a copy of the Koran in the street, and lets see what happens to you. By the way, be free to burn a Bible or Torah in Times Square. The worst you will get is one or two black looks."
Had you tried to burn a Bible in 17th century New England and your fate would have been no different from someone trying to burn a Koran in Riyadh today. The Islamic world is backward as Christendom was a few centuries ago. And I don't want to go back to dark ages. I am not preaching atheism, I am rather an agnostic, but this does not matter, what is important that no one has the right to impose his belief on others. You can pray to Jesus if you like, and don't mind, you can pray 5 times a day to Allah and I dont mind either, but if you want Inquisition or Sharia you will face my fierce resistance.
Pat Condell, who basically says the same as I do, has been featured several times here. I sought I will find like minded people here, who oppose fanaticism. Maybe I was wrong, I am really not wanted here.
Spirit Of 1683 said... 18
"El, as you think Christianity and Judaism are no better than Islam, I suggest you go and live in a typical Islamic theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia, piss on or burn a copy of the Koran in the street, and lets see what happens to you. By the way, be free to burn a Bible or Torah in Times Square. The worst you will get is one or two black looks."
Had you tried to burn a Bible in 17th century New England and your fate would have been no different from someone trying to burn a Koran in Riyadh today. The Islamic world is backward as Christendom was a few centuries ago. And I don't want to go back to dark ages. I am not preaching atheism, I am rather an agnostic, but this does not matter, what is important that no one has the right to impose his belief on others. You can pray to Jesus if you like, and don't mind, you can pray 5 times a day to Allah and I dont mind either, but if you want Inquisition or Sharia you will face my fierce resistance.
Pat Condell, who basically says the same as I do, has been featured several times here. I thought I will find like minded people here, who oppose fanaticism. Maybe I was wrong, and I am really not wanted here.
Oh, where to begin...
El (#1) If you were to look under the surface, I don't believe that christianity is actually fading. I have had one good friend come out to me in the last few months as a christian, and I was asked to sponsor her.
Another friend has gone back to the Church and had his son baptised.
I know of at least one Anglican priest who is looking at crossing the Tiber, and there is a growing demand for the Catholic Latin Mass. (I've gone back to the Catholic Church myself and attend the LM).
It just doesn't make the news because Christianity isn't sexy like islam is. It's not as dramatic, and as they say... if it bleeds it leads. The only thing bleeding in Christianity is Our Lord, and everyone knows about that.
With respect to NoisyTappet and Christianity being faded and that being a part of the plan, I agree with the plan.
The communists have tried (and are still trying) to stamp out Christianity. The atheists hate it with a passion. Why don't they ever bang on about Hinduism or Buddhism? Why on earth are the pagans encouraged to proliferate, I wonder?
There is a disconnect here that is rarely discussed, and the only religions that are seen as supremacist and offensive in this context are Christianity and Judaism.
Interesting when you consider that Jews do not proselytise.
Yes, Christians do, but we are also expected to set an example of how to live.
I guess the idea of being personally responsible through your accountability to God in the next life is too much for people to bear. It's way too easy to brush it aside as being irrelevant and therefore unnecessary.
Add to that the radical concept that as flawed beings we cannot ever make it to the next level on our own but must rely on God's help (through Jesus), then we're talking something a bit out of the ordinary.
The concept of sin has been devalued, and what were considered bad character traits - lying, promiscuity,thieving - are now acceptable behaviour. Check out the politicians and the celebs. Look at how they are lauded.
Hello El,
As far as I am concerned, and I'm sure others on this blog agree, you are welcome. I want to comment upon your comment. I find it interesting that you go back 400 years or so to find your example about intolerant Christian theocracy. And because of the dictum to give to Ceasar what is Caear's as well as Christianity's emphasis upon love and brotherhood (so many parables, casting the first stone,the good Samaritan, etc.,etc.,etc.) one can say that the kind of intolerance exhibited by Christianity in the Middle Ages in Europe and 400 years ago in the United states was a deviation from a true Christianity.
One cannot make the same claim for Islam which was founded by a murderous warlord and which mandates warfare against unbelievers.
And at least some of those involved in the prosecutions in the Salem witch trials later apologized. When do we see Muslims apologizing for their murderous acts? (I mean aside from very few self-serving courtroom statements designed to get a lighter sentence).
Even the Crusades were a reaction and (as others on this site have noted), in part, an imitation of Muslim practice. One can even make a good case that the Spanish inquisition was an imitation of the earlier Moorish inquistion in Muslim Spain.
And as for Judaism, I've been reliably told by a Hebrew scholar that it says in the Talmud (which allows and contains differing interpretations and opinions) that for every statement in the Old Testament, there are 70 levels of meaning. So not even Orthodox Jews have to take the Old Testament literally. And they don't. They interpret. They've been doing this for millenia. And even the Old Testament DID NOT mandate open-ended warfare against ALL unbelievers EVERYWHERE as does Islam.
We don't see Jews and Christians blowing up airplanes and schools and threatening civil society in an attempt to impose a barbaric, 7th century system of laws.
In contrast, where is the hope of Islam's re-interpretation of the Koran and the life of Mohammed? Would you rather see a society imitating the life of Christ or a society imitating the life of Mohammed? And the Koran is the direct word of Allah as the New and Old Testaments never were. Therefore, upon pain of death, it cannot be "reformed." The difficultiy with the reformation of Islam is orders of magnitude greater than reformation of either Judaism or Christianity.
We know that there are many Muslims who don't really practice their religion, many Muslims who don't always know what is in the Koran and many Muslims-in name-only. But no one can ever predict whether or not their children will begin to take Islam more seriously or even whether they, themselves, will begin to become more religious. And in fact there is a pattern of "moderate" Muslims claiming to not understand their Jihadi children. To paraphrase the Syrian-American psychologist, Wafa Sultan, when Muslims begin to read and take seriously their foundational religious texts, they become "radicalized." Period.
Some years ago an American artist exhibited a work showing a crucifix immersed in a bottle of his own urine. It was publicly exhibited. "Conservative" Christians were upset and spoke out against it. To pour salt in the wound, they knew that the "artist" was funded with their tax money through the NEA. There was no rioting, no destruction of property and no one was killed because of this incident. Contrast that with what happened with the Mohammed cartoons. Even today, people are being threatened with death because of those cartoons.
Leftists love to equate the "three, major monotheistic religions." Most of us on this blog know better. Thus the irritation with some of your comments.
As Pat Condell says, "Peace."
And Best Wishes for a Happy New Year.
El,
I agree with the previous poster in that we hear Muslims try to argue that their 'religion' is somehow related to Christianity & Judaism, and I also agree that everyone on here knows better. Islam is not 'just another religion'. It is not a private affair, practiced by individuals who leave running the country to elected officials. I'm sure you know this as well as any of us.
Can I suggest again that you take a look at Machiavelli's 'The Prince', for (having studied that text many years ago now) your comments about classical morality playing a part in what now needs to be done - in 'opposition' to Christianity one might say - struck a chord. Quentin Skinner wrote a rather excellent 'Very Short Introduction' to Machiavelli's work which is available on Amazon for the princely (ho, ho) sum of £4.99, and that is a textbook I can definitely recommend.
best wishes,
Nick.
El: Maybe I was wrong, and I am really not wanted here.
Unfortunately, I think more than a few people are unaware of your contributions to this web site. Were they, there might be a different tenor to this debate.
That said, you have mentioned Pat Condell and if your vehement rejection of religion is framed in the exact manner as Condell's then there is little to argue as you would not be in favor of curtailing anyone's right to the peaceful and unintrusive practice of their faith.
As to whether you are indulging in equivalency that certainly needs to be clarified. on-my-own-in-berkeley observed:
… one can say that the kind of intolerance exhibited by Christianity in the Middle Ages in Europe and 400 years ago in the United states was a deviation from a true Christianity.
One cannot make the same claim for Islam which was founded by a murderous warlord and which mandates warfare against unbelievers. [emphasis added]
on-my-own-in-berkeley also noted how Judaism remains open to interpretation. In fact, Judaism even allows one to question the very existence of God without penalty or repercussion. Nothing of the sort can be said for Islam.
At the very least, this is where others have probably taken some serious offense. There is no reasonable comparison of Christianity to Islam, especially in light of both Christianity's core doctrine of charismatic recruitment and how it has permutated over time; Both of which Islam is entirely devoid of.
To reiterate; whereas Christianity has clearly been subjected to malpractice, no such thing has happened with Islam for the past millennia or so.
On a final note, Islam's attempt to clothe itself in the sanctity of Judeo-Christian traditions falls straight to the ground once closer inspection is given to the nature of jihad.
There is no god worth worshiping that would religiously sanctify the slaughtering of his own innocent creations. Period.
Forget the finely minced mumbo jumbo of who is or isn't Muslim or "Islamically pure" (a loophole through which you could steam an aircraft carrier). No God worthy of the appellation could ever be so approving of Islam's abject slaughter and mayhem. It defies all definitions and parameters of a functional deity.
Zenster --
This "El" is not our own El Inglés, but someone else entirely. I checked.
Baron Bodissey: This "El" is not our own El Inglés, but someone else entirely. I checked.
Thank you very much for clearing up my case of mistaken identity. Previous comments by El had seemed to indicate it was an abbreviated nick.
I will freely admit that it was hard to reconcile the quality of El Inglés' original contributions with this rather unexpected stance.
Again, thank you for the fact checking and Happy New Year!
El, rather than whining about "personal attacks", how about you own up to the (presumably accidental) moral equivalence so richly documented in your further comments..?
@Henrik R Clausen,
Excellent points, as usual. Also like the things that @Nick has brought to bear.
You know, I am getting more than a tad bit fed up with these dogmatically anti-religious equivalists, who seem to suffer heavily from the Zappa-symdrome and appear to be more inclined to argue for their new laicist world order, than against the totalitarianism of islam.
If the counterjihad would depend on these salon-secularists, who still treat the advancement of Islam as some kind of academic issue and a chance to spread their own beliefs, then as an agnostic myself I would be tempted to say: "Good Lord, please help us" ;-)
I for one am glad that back in 1683 there was a "theocratic" state of sorts, the Papal States now reduced to the Vatican, and that the "theocrat supreme", Pope Innocent XI, still had the power to bring about the Christian armies of the Holy League that defeated the Turks at the Gates of Vienna.
In the light of all this, it would be a rather dark sign of the times indeed, if dishonouring Christianity the simplistic and uninformed way commenter @El has done, would meet with no opposition on this blog.
But I'd like to repeat what other have said in the past:
"When in a foxhole, I'm with the one shooting in the right direction".
So El, if you want to join the chattering classes, please go ahead and don't bother to pass for a fellow in this fight, but if you manage to firmly "keep your eye on the ball", you're most welcome.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
El says Had you tried to burn a Bible in 17th century New England and your fate would have been no different from someone trying to burn a Koran in Riyadh today.
17th Century New England was more than 300 years ago. We are talking about the 21st Century, so less of your moralising claptrap. Today, Muslim terrorists are murdering innocent infidels who live thousands of miles away. Saudi and Egyptian-born Muslims carried out the 9/11 atrocity in New York, more than 4,500 miles from their birthplace. They literally went a fifth of the way round the globe to carry out their heinous atrocity. But that goes above your head. In yout tiny mind Christianity is as dangerous and repressivce as Islam, and as you believe that, then off you go to Saudi Arabia, burn a Koran there, and may the door not strike you on the way out.
As a newbie to this forum I would just like to bow to the superior knowledge, intellect and articulation found on this forum - something I can only aspire to.
I'm certainly not a devout Christian but I do consider myself to have Christian values because of my Church of England upbringing. These gradually evolving Christian values have been at the core of Western society,.
I do believe that as one of the many fifth column strategies the fading of Christianity is part of the Grand Plan to ease he Islamification of the West, in so much as these traditional values, upheld standards of education, law and order, the work ethic, sense of community, health and welfare, awareness, defence, in fact all things that have been deliberately allowed to erode by our traitorous elected and unelected leaders.
By degree as individual Western Nations weaken, so the influence of Islam gets stronger.
Internationally we are now unable to help each other or ourselves in the power struggle because we are now unarmed, equally stifled by political correctness and are all suffering from exactly the same affliction.
Unlike any previous invasions, this time the enemy, by invitation, is already here and will soon out number us. We have become dependant on an enemy that increasingly owns us. Thanks to the West's inventiveness with oil, the greed and betrayal by our Political Elite, 'Stealth Jihad' etc our land - whatever Christian country that may be, our culture and our Christian values, even our very civilisation have been sabotaged and sold out. We are now the foreigners in our own land. I fear its too late.
Traditional Christianity as was practiced up until the mid 20th century has long since been hijacked by Communism.
The original form of Christianity pre 1960s, is not what is now being practiced in the Western world of today, What has altered and subsequently diluted it via infiltration, is a godless version of humanism, ie, an offshoot of Communism.
So, the question is
would the indigenous peoples of Western nations feel less safe and more threatened by the reintroduction of a new protracted Dark Age incorporating denial of inalienable human rights and freedoms replete with medieval savagery at very turn under Islamism or would they feel safer and less threatened under the yolk of Communism?
I suggest each and everyone research and carefully read up on what the core values of Communism and Islamism really are, and appreciate the strong similarities between them both with regards to their respective totalitarian and ruthless natures before reaching any conclusions.
In my view, Ethnonationalism is the only political ideology capable of preserving and safeguarding all indigenous peoples, their territories, heritages, beliefs, traditions and cultures.
Anything less, is pure capitulation and submission leading ultimately to wipeout (Genocide).
@syntec,
You wrote:
"In my view, Ethnonationalism is the only political ideology capable of [..] Anything less, is pure capitulation and submission [..]"
Anything less is indeed doomed to fail, but I am afraid that ethno-nationalism isn't nearly enough. I believe we should aim a bit higher and fight for freedom, backed up by the traditional conception of Natural Law (not the so-called "human rights" of the social contracters).
Such societies would be characterized by truly free markets (not the FED induced crap game we've seen this past century) and the smallest form of govt possible. Of course income tax would go, as well as central banking (I agree that, as a structure, nations are fine, but not as the welfare, i.e. slave states they are today)
Meanwhile when asked what it is we are or should be fighting for in the struggle against Islam, I'd say "our natural right to freedom" (which is something else than our current relative freedom, that has been under attack for a long time now).
I agree on the nation part also insofar as we should firmly oppose all elitist attempts at forcing supranational state-like entities upon us, like the EUSSR, the UN and so on.
I believe it's not gonna be some sort of system that will save the day, but indeed, like you say: traditions. That is, people who still cherish their traditional freedoms and want to defend them (like the genuine, traditionalist part of the Tea-Party movement). In my view the free market is another word for freedom and as much a self-regulatory "anti-system" you can get, and I think the real spirit of the West still lies in its freedom loving people.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
"Anything less is indeed doomed to fail, but I am afraid that ethno-nationalism isn't nearly enough. I believe we should aim a bit higher and fight for freedom, backed up by the traditional conception of Natural Law (not the so-called "human rights" of the social contracters)."
To achieve an Ethnonationalist society, it goes without saying that it would necessitate fighting for our freedoms as indigenous peoples backed by, as you rightly point out, Natural Law which I've more than once alluded to myself on various other forums too.
However, I'm not sure how the structure of the Free Market can spiritually assist us indigenous peoples in our ongoing struggle against annihilation.
Something other than material well-being is desparately required which will have the effect of regenerating faith and pride in who we are both past and present before it's too late.
That something is traditional Christianity into which our Pagan roots were long ago merged and which is not alien to the concept of racial and cultural preservation.
@syntec,
You wrote:
"However, I'm not sure how the structure of the Free Market can spiritually assist us indigenous peoples [..] Something other than material well-being is desparately required"
Thank you for reminding me to state my point more clearly. I find myself in complete agreement with your views, but for the fact that i.m.h.o., freedom under Natural Law and free markets are two sides of the very same coin, so free market thinking can not be reduced to material well-being only.
But you're absolutely right on the legacy of traditional Christianity. In this respect I'd like to mention the scholarly work that recently showed the intimate link between the Church and the development of free market philosophy long before Adam Smith voiced his (partly) free market ideas.
There's an even more important point to make. Free market philosophy stipulates small government and a less omnipresent (nanny) state leaves more room for traditional Christianity. So one would expect traditional Christian officials to be among the strongest advocates for free markets and small government.
If only that were true..
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
"Attacking Christianity makes no sense in context. Christianity (also by accomodating Hellenism) gave us the notion of universal human rights, private property, the notion of every man being worthy in itself, and ultimately the philosophical foundation for free and democratic societies. It is no coincidence that democracy developed in the Christian world, nowhere else, as did Capitalism."
Henrik, you realize that universalism is leading us to our demise, right? And modern liberalism and communism have their roots in Christianity too, despite eliminating the theist element.
"Christianity (also by accomodating Hellenism) gave us the notion of universal human rights, private property, the notion of every man being worthy in itself, and ultimately the philosophical foundation for free and democratic societies."
These outcomes, ie, universal human rights, private property, equality, etc, etc, are not quite how traditional Christianity perceived and intended its early thoughts, principals and teachings to be practically interpreted. Christian ideology was about teaching and enabling the downtrodden to help themselves where they evolved, by their own efforts and, of course, good living.
Christianity also railed against the accumulation of money and the acquisition of material wealth principally for fear of false worship and corruption of the soul.
Like all religions, Christianity was and still is prone to self-contradictions, particularly between the Old and New Testaments, but that doesn't mean it should be discarded or made irrelevant. If so, then in that case, so also should all belief systems including Paganism and even Atheism since it's deemed criminal in contemporary society to discriminate between separate beliefs, cultures and alleged values.
What you describe above really evolved from the Enlightenment era which proved to be a major revolution in the art of interpretation in its day and had highly profound after-effects on the accepted nature of traditional Christianity itself up until that point in time.
From there on in, atheist and alien non-Christian political/ religious opportunists began inverting thus corrupting the original message of Christianity for the purpose of engineering the foundations of their own atheist and/or alternative religious notions of what a society should consist of and resemble rather than a case of political systems such as Secularism, Capitalism, Communism, and Liberalism having sprung from Christian values.
Post a Comment