Neither side could win. Neither side could back down. Today, the ground contains more than 100,000 unknown soldiers, not to mention those whose remains have been identified. For decades after, shell casings, bayonets, helmets ... bones turned up when farmers plowed the poor soil. Possibly they still do today.
Why do I bring this ghastly episode up?
As I fear, the conflict over the Ground Zero mosque is shaping up as the modern equivalent of Verdun. No, there will not be soldiers on the field, although in a metaphorical sense this may be where the armies of the Western world and Islam face one another.
It looks now like both sides are going to take a stand over territory, and neither will back off. As I said previously, territory is the wrong thing to contest. We should be arguing over Muslim immigration, not where they want to build Fort Cordova. But for now territory is the issue.
Today, New York's overbearing, blowhard mayor, Michael Bloomberg, dug in his heels.
... He observed that “there are people of every faith–including, perhaps, some in this room–who are hoping that a compromise will end the debate.”“But it won’t,” he said.
The community center can and must be built at the Park51 site, he said. Anything less would “compromise our commitment to fighting terror with freedom."
This is astonishing. It goes beyond, way beyond, expressing a view. We -- the little people, formerly known as the public -- have no choice. It is not ours to decide. The mosque will be built over our American dead bodies. The Powers have spoken.
No compromise. Not giving in to Islam would limit our "commitment to fighting terror with freedom." The freedom to obey our masters.
I've had to revise downward, way down, my views of what Americans will tolerate. There is obviously a large dhimmi contingent, and a larger portion of my countrymen who don't care about anything except the economy.
But still, I don't think the United States of America will surrender to its ruling class and their obedient servants in the mass media on a Ground Zero mosque.
This looks like a standoff. This looks like a battle with fearful losses to come on both sides. This looks like Verdun.
39 comments:
I've had to revise downward, way down, my views of what Americans will tolerate. There is obviously a large dhimmi contingent, and a larger portion of my countrymen who don't care about anything except the economy.
As I've said many times in many places, in a revolution a relatively small but cohesive and motivated minority moves the majority, rather than vice versa. Our own revolutionaries understood this very well, as those in favor of breaking away from England were not in the majority.
You are quite right about many Americans only caring about the economy, but as such it is the economy that has the most potential for waking the most people up the quickest. Best not to fret about bringing a large number of Americans over to our side, because 1) a majority is not required in any case, and 2) when the federal udder is clamped forever, people will have to become canny survivors or perish. Survivalism is conservatism. In the meantime, it looks like a slow but steady trickle is coming over to us for the right reasons, and we should be glad of this even as we recognize that there is much suffering in our collective future.
Bloombert: "The community center can and must be built at the Park51 site"
This seems to me a clear violation of church/state separation. Real-estate projects are delayed all the time; indeed, the nimbys and "progressives" have made it virtually impossible to build *anything* in less than a decade. To call out a religiously-driven project for special accelerated political sponsorship and preference is inconsistent with the Establishment clause.
Thanks for your comments, gentlemen.
It is bizarre for a mayor to say, concerning an issue sharply dividing the people of his own city (not to mention the country), that no compromise is possible. Politics is supposed to be the art of compromise.
If Mayor Bloomberg "wins," and manages to ram the approval through using Obama-like tactics, he is very much mistaken to imagine that will be the end of it. Force feeding the mosque to the city will only raise the temperature further, and probably cause many opponents to think about the bigger picture — what Muslim immigration means for the United States.
Rick Derby wrote: We should be arguing over Muslim immigration, not where they want to build Fort Cordova. But for now territory is the issue.
Muslim immigration will continue. What has happened in Europe will happen in America as well but in spades. With immigration, family reunification, illegal immigration, and a high birth rate, Muslims will eventually control the legislature, and can then set sharia as the law of the land.
The question is how to stop Muslim immigration without it appearing as religious discrimination. The next question is how to reverse Muslim immigration. Both need to be done in a manner that does not appear discriminatory, does not require laws to be passed that are viewed as unconstitutional. Or as Kenny Everett, a radio DJ used to put it, "All done in the best POSSIBLE taste".
If we can get enough people who are thought leaders of informal networks to join our side, then we can turn the masses to our side. We don't need armed revolution to do this.
Each of the intolerable acts of our enemies can be turned this way such as the mosque. Local thought leaders come in many forms. Most of all they are those who are most determined. These are often those who feel they no longer have a choice.
When potential leaders feel there is no other choice, then potential followers do as well.
This is the run up to every revolution that succeeded. When the moment of revolution comes, the side that has this certainty of no other choice is the one that often prevails, if it still has enough mass.
DP111, you write as if a cessation of Muslim immigration (let alone a reversal) can occur by sleight of hand, without any unseemly arguing or (heaven forfend) unconstitutional use of force. I strongly dispute that the Founders, when they voted for the Constitution, believed they were voting for full and complete religious freedom for Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims, as opposed to what was encompassed by religious freedom in their day: a guarded toleration for an extremely limited number of Jews and an unlimited and diverse group of Christian denominations free from government interference. Regardless of their intent, modern interpretation makes necessary specific constitutional amendments and laws restricting the religious freedom of those Muslims residing here and expediting their expulsion. Anything else is increasingly rapid suicide. I doubt we have the numbers or the will to do what is required. Decline and fall.
The question is how to stop Muslim immigration without it appearing as religious discrimination.
----
Reciprocity. Just legislate that any immigration-sending country must offer all Americans the exact same freedoms, liberties and affirmative action quotas that the US offers to THEIR people.
If they don't agree, then cut them off. This would also halt immigration from Mexico and other hypocritical non-white countries.
The Muslims will NEVER agree to offer white Christian Americans the same deal they expect us to provide for them.
--Maria
Sheila
The trouble we have is that the present social and political structure in the West, is dominated by Liberalism. In this structure, there are no enemies just different points of view.
Over the years, since 9/11, when the reality of Islam was little understood, I have addressed this problem - firstly on LGF, the foremost anti-Jihad blog at the time, and then over at Jihad Watch, Gates of Vienna, and Fjordman’s blog, SIOE and many more.
Laurence Auster advocates separation, and has done so for many years. However, I see no way, short of civil war, that we can reverse Muslim immigration.( Google DP111+ global civil war).
Or
http://www.globalpolitician.com/22510-france-multiculturalism
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/02/islamic-apartheid-in-west.html
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/03/swedish-muslims-call-for-terror.html
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.religion.islam/2006-04/msg01551.html
A civil war will be an unmitigated disaster. Auster suggests no feasible political strategy that we can implement now, that in the fullness of time, leads to a political position where it becomes politically feasible and acceptable that Muslims are declared enemy aliens. Therefore one has to consider the problem in a different manner.
Just as Jihad, a doctrine of war operates on many levels, including the insidious one. There is no reason why we cant do the same.
One way is to use the oppression of women, and the dire position of Apostates.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2005/08/freedom-of-burqa.html#readfurther
Pamela Geller is now using this most effectively.
Such tactics are useful in alerting the population about the backwardness of Islam as a culture, but do not address the real problem we have – the demographic growth of Muslims in the West.
Let me re- phrase the problem we have.
Now we know that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and law abiding. There is no doubt though, that once the Muslim population in any country is large enough, Muslims are required to institute sharia, and they will do so. The distinction between ‘moderate’ or ‘radical’ Muslims is thus totally meaningless in this context. It also means, that all Muslims, including peaceful ones are an existential threat. So here it is. How do we institute a procedure that requires the expulsion of all Muslims, even though they have committed no crime, on the basis that they or their more numerous descendants in the future, will one day attempt to implement sharia in the West?
That is the crux of the problem.
Sheila
Part 1
The trouble we have is that the present social and political structure in the West, is dominated by Liberalism. In this structure, there are no enemies just different points of view.
Over the years, since 9/11, when the reality of Islam was little understood, I have addressed this problem - firstly on LGF, the foremost anti-Jihad blog at the time, and then over at Jihad Watch, Gates of Vienna, and Fjordman’s blog, SIOE and many more.
Laurence Auster advocates separation, and has done so for many years. However, I see no way, short of civil war, that we can reverse Muslim immigration.( Google DP111+ global civil war).
Or
http://www.globalpolitician.com/22510-france-multiculturalism
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/02/islamic-apartheid-in-west.html
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/03/swedish-muslims-call-for-terror.html
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.religion.islam/2006-04/msg01551.html
A civil war will be an unmitigated disaster. Auster suggests no feasible political strategy that we can implement now, that in the fullness of time, leads to a political position where it becomes politically feasible and acceptable that Muslims are declared enemy aliens. Therefore one has to consider the problem in a different manner.
Just as Jihad, a doctrine of war operates on many levels, including the insidious one. There is no reason why we cant do the same.
One way is to use the oppression of women, and the dire position of Apostates.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2005/08/freedom-of-burqa.html#readfurther
Pamela Geller is now using this most effectively.
Anon
We are facing an enemy that is chamelion like - it changes its colour and character depending on the situation it finds itself in.
Over the years, many people have hoped for a reformation in Islam** - a reformation that will root out the violent suras for the Koran.
Let us consider the hypothetical situation that ALL Muslims at present living in the West, accepted the call to clean up their communities of extremism. They even went further and made the changes in their teachings of the Koran and the jihad. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a relief to many on this site, the government, the MSM, and elsewhere. But I counter, that all such changes were being done merely to protect the ummah while it grows at ever-increasing pace in the West. Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of Muslims will simply revoke any changes, and return to the traditions of the unchanging and unchangeable Koran i.e., the canonical texts of Islam that cannot be changed, but only protected when under duress. That future generation of Muslims in the UK and the USA will even praise this generation of Muslims for having done what was necessary to protect Islam.
And yet we know that we have to have separation from Islam, or our civilisation dies.
------------------------------
** It has taken place, and Islam has gone back to its roots laid down by its founder.
Sheila
Part 1
The trouble we have is that the present social and political structure in the West, is dominated by Liberalism. In this structure, there are no enemies just different points of view.
Over the years, since 9/11, when the reality of Islam was little understood, I have addressed this problem - firstly on LGF, the foremost anti-Jihad blog at the time, and then over at Jihad Watch, Gates of Vienna, and Fjordman’s blog, SIOE and many more.
Laurence Auster advocates separation, and has done so for many years. However, I see no way, short of civil war, that we can reverse Muslim immigration.( Google DP111+ global civil war).
Or
http://www.globalpolitician.com/22510-france-multiculturalism
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/02/islamic-apartheid-in-west.html
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/03/swedish-muslims-call-for-terror.html
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.religion.islam/2006-04/msg01551.html
A civil war will be an unmitigated disaster. Auster suggests no feasible political strategy that we can implement now, that in the fullness of time, leads to a political position where it becomes politically feasible and acceptable that Muslims are declared enemy aliens. Therefore one has to consider the problem in a different manner.
Old Atlantic Lighthouse
By the time the dire nature of the situation is realised it will be too late to avoid a civil war and partition.
You wrote : If they don't agree, then cut them off. This would also halt immigration from Mexico and other hypocritical non-white countries
But what if they lie (Taqqiya), and by the time our well meaning elites realized, it was too late. By that time, Muslims will be numerous enough to break the Hudna type of treaty they may have agreed to.
Besides, it is unwise to entrust the survival of our civilisation in the hands of the enemy.
Sheila
Part 1
The trouble we have is that the present social and political structure in the West, is dominated by Liberalism. In this structure, there are no enemies just different points of view.
Over the years, since 9/11, when the reality of Islam was little understood, I have addressed this problem - firstly on LGF, the foremost anti-Jihad blog at the time, and then over at Jihad Watch, Gates of Vienna, and Fjordman’s blog, SIOE and many more.
Laurence Auster advocates separation, and has done so for many years. However, I see no way, short of civil war, that we can reverse Muslim immigration.( Google DP111+ global civil war).
Or
http://www.globalpolitician.com/22510-france-multiculturalism
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/02/islamic-apartheid-in-west.html
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/03/swedish-muslims-call-for-terror.html
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.religion.islam/2006-04/msg01551.html
Part 2
A civil war will be an unmitigated disaster. Auster suggests no feasible political strategy that we can implement now, that in the fullness of time, leads to a political position where it becomes politically feasible and acceptable that Muslims are declared enemy aliens. Therefore one has to consider the problem in a different manner.
Just as Jihad, a doctrine of war operates on many levels, including the insidious one, there is no reason why we cant do the same.
One way is to use the oppression of women, and the dire position of Apostates.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2005/08/freedom-of-burqa.html#readfurther
Pamela Geller is now using this most effectively.
Such tactics are useful in alerting the population about the backwardness of Islam as a culture, but do not address the real problem we have – the demographic growth of Muslims in the West.
Let me re- phrase the problem we have.
Now we know that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and law abiding. There is no doubt though, that once the Muslim population in any country is large enough, Muslims are required to institute sharia, and they will do so. The distinction between ‘moderate’ or ‘radical’ Muslims is thus totally meaningless in this context. It also means, that all Muslims, including peaceful ones are an existential threat. So here it is. How do we institute a procedure that requires the expulsion of all Muslims, even though they have committed no crime, on the basis that they or their more numerous descendants in the future, will one day attempt to implement sharia in the West?
That is the crux of the problem.
"We know that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and law-abiding." - DP111. No, "we" don't know that at all. For you to posit it's a "problem" to legislate the expulsion of all Muslims is to assume that we have no right to decide who is or is not a citizen. The citizenship and naturalization laws have been changed repeatedly over the years, as have the grounds for revocation of citizenship. There are easily available legal ways to accomplish Muslim expulsion; the problem is one of will, not legality.
For you to cite Pamela Geller, whose ultimate goal is the continual elevation of her own ego, as successful in tarring Islam as anti-feminist tells me all I need to know about your positions and your allegiances. Decline and fall.
But what if they lie (Taqqiya), and by the time our well meaning elites realized, it was too late. By that time, Muslims will be numerous enough to break the Hudna type of treaty they may have agreed to.
---
Oh, as part of the reciprocity agreement, they let one of ours in when we let one of theirs in; we don't let in unequal numbers.
If they don't treat ours according to the treaty, we have the right to send theirs back home.
Sheila wrote : "We know that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and law-abiding." - DP111. No, "we" don't know that at all.
There are large numers of Muslims who are peaceful, and I know many of them. However that does not mean that they will fail to support sharia when the opportunity arrives.
----------------------------------
Anon wrote: Oh, as part of the reciprocity agreement, they let one of ours in when we let one of theirs in; we don't let in unequal numbers.
That works as long as the birth rate of each side is the same. As Muslim birth rates are far higher then Western ones, Muslims will be eventually win in both dar ul islam and dar ul harb.
Pamella Geller aside, the central problem remains. Muslims are citizens here in the West, and millions will be second of third generation citizens
in the near future. Not so easy to remove them.
That there has to be a stop to Muslim immigration as a prelude to its reversal, is a position well rehearsed by me.
The real problem is how to bring about a political situation in the West, particularly the UK and the USA, when such a policy of stopping Muslim immigration, can even begin to be considered seriously.
Consider 9/11. The raging white anger of Americans after 9/11, provided an excellent opportunity for the administration to simply remove Muslims from the US. Many Muslims had resigned themselves to some serious measures. Some took the precaution not to travel abroad, just in case the US closed its doors to Muslims. What is interesting to note here, is that even under the extreme provocation of the assault on New York, akin or even greater then Pearl Harbour, the resulting deaths of some 3000, and the obvious glee in the Muslim world of the humiliation of America, the US never considered even the removal of dangerous Islamists from the US.
Given the above, we can make a case for stopping Muslim immigration as much as we like, but nothing will happen till there is a change in the political atmosphere. How that can be brought about, is the real issue.
If you rely on "a change in the political atmosphere" to ensure our future survival, you will be waiting until the end times. I can agree with you, DP111, that nothing will happen with white people's present deliberate blindness. Personally, I do not believe the majority will be persuaded, even upon the point of death, to abandon their deliberate self-delusion. Either a committed "remnant" moves things forward (which I do not believe can be done via peaceful means) or the masses continue to peacefully march to their demise. While I would prefer the former, I fully expect the latter. Decline and fall.
Part 1
We will be waiting forever anyhow, as long as Liberal regime holds total sway in the West. So no change there.
We are thus left with relying on Islamists to make a mistake. In their hurry
1. Overreach- which then creates reaction. But then the Islamists
will simply withdraw amid lots of apologies, appeals to interfaith dialogue etc - you know the stuff.
2. They nuke a large Western city - from this there is no withdrawal. But the liberal elite will not expel the Muslim population, which is where the real existential threat is. They will make a proportionate response, by going after the Jihadis in a more vigorous manner. That is what happened after 9/11 - a Pearl Harbour incident, and will happen again.
So again nothing.
We have a real problem - the problem is the growing Muslim demographic. How do we start the removal of Muslims now, i.e. before the population becomes so large that nothing can be done except a civil war (and therefore partition). Yet we cannot do this by openly stating that the yet unborn future and more numerous generation of Muslims will implement sharia given the chance. It is the equivalent of blaming the unborn. So stymied again.
Strategy 1.
What is necessary is to make the West hostile to Islam, so that practising Muslims start to leave of their own accord.
For all Muslims, raising Islam above all, is the most directive (therefore GZM). The reverse is if Kuffars downgrade Islam.
Mosques with minarets are forts, whose main purpose is to extend the physical domain of Islam.
i) The Swiss ban on minarets meant two things
That the mosque was being allowed as a charitable dispensation at the discretion of the Infidel authority, i.e., the mosque without the minarets was really a castrated mosque - a symbol of subservience to the Infidel, then one of victory.
A Swiss mosque, sans minarets, is viewed by Muslims, as a symbol of Infidel insult to Muslims.
Essentially, Muslims view it as an insult and a warning that the Swiss will not tolerate any more Islamisation.
Ditto for the ban on the burqa, even though very few Muslims wear it (including bank robbers).
Part 2
Geert Wilders has also stated that the Koran, like Mein Kamph, is a 'hate' book, and should be banned. I'm sure he does not mean it, but it keeps the pressure on Muslims, and makes them consider leaving. It also has the advantage of alerting people, that there is something 'funny' about the koran.
There are others as well. Schools, which had separate swimming facilities for boys and girls (in response to Islamic pressure), are making them unisex again. When Muslims withdrew their daughters from swimming lessons (in Basle I believe), the local council is threatening them with escalating fines.
This is all good, and will cause some Muslims to leave. The advantage of such a strategy is that we have done nothing to sully our reputation for tolerance and liberal democracy- in fact we have enhanced it by championing women's rights.
Some Muslims may well leave as a consequence, but it does not change the big picture.
There is one strategy that will split, in fact create a huge gulf between the West and Islamic countries till the time Islam is dead or reformed. It will make virtually all Muslims voluntarily leave the West, again without damaging our free and tolerant society for all - unfortunately that process is now at a stop, as Americans in their wisdom elected Obama. Still, operating under the premise, that a delayed process will be more vigorous, I have hopes.
Sheila,
Let's say for the sake of argument that you are correct. Whites will retreat endlessly before the leftist onslaught and "decline and fall" is our inevitable future.
What, then, should each of us do on an individual level? How are you preparing your children for this cataclysm that must destroy us?
Van Wijk said : What, then, should each of us do on an individual level? How are you preparing your children for this cataclysm that must destroy us?
At an individual level,educate everyone you know of the sheer horror of Islam. ( Read the history of Jihad on the Internet or the work of Andrew Bostom).
Will the Muslim demographic, and this is the main threat, even if we stop all Muslim immigration, destroy us? No it wont, for there are other factors in play.
Van Wijk - my fear for my sons' future is constant and growing. Both have been privately educated (I will never willingly subject my children to government indoctrination) and know the truth about history, culture, race, and religion. Both have been given a solid education, a solid family upbringing, and a genuine Christian faith. The older already exercises his second amendment rights; the younger will be instructed in such in good time. Beyond that, and speaking the unvarnished truth to them (some limitations so as not to terrify the younger one), I don't know what else I can do. If you have any suggestions I am more than open to them. Let me emphasize I am not advocating passivity - quite the opposite. I will resist the coming onslaught with all I have; I merely do not expect to be joined by large enough numbers in enough time to make any real difference.
More on ways by which the West can be Islam unfriendly, and still be consistently liberal and tolerant.
Italy: Islam denied income tax revenue
Reason? Radical imams, polygamy and failure to uphold women's rights by Muslims immigrants are obstacles to recognising Islam as an official religion in Italy.
Rome, 27 August (AKI) - Mosques in Italy will not receive a share of income tax revenue the Italian government allocates to religious faiths each year. Hindu and Buddhist temples, Greek Orthodox churches and Jehovah's Witnesses will be eligible for the funds, according to a bill approved by the Italian cabinet in May and still must be approved by parliament.
Until now, the government had earmarked 8 percent of income tax revenue for Italy's established churches. The great majority of these funds go to the Catholic Church, although if they wish, individual tax payers may elect to give the money to charities and cultural projects instead.
The head of COREIS, one of Italy's largest Muslim groups, Yahya Pallavicini, said he was bitter that Islam had been denied the revenue from Italian income tax.
"Work should be begun on legally recognising those moderate Muslims who have for years shown themselves to be reliable interlocutors who are free of and fundamentalist ideology," he said.
Islam is not an established religion in Italy and there is only one official mosque in the country, Rome's Grand Mosque (photo). Politicians from the ruling coalition cite radical imams, polygamy and failure to uphold women's rights by Muslims immigrants as obstacles to recognising Islam as an official religion in Italy.
http://eye-on-the-world.blogspot.com/2010/08/italy-islam-denied-income-tax-revenue.html
Sheila,
I asked because after reading your comments at a few blogs I feared you had given in to despair. To my relief, I see that is not the case. I can find no fault with the way you are raising your sons; if you had no hope at all, you wouldn't bother. The real defeatists become libertines.
Of course there is no guarantee of a positive outcome for anything, especially in these times. For what it's worth, I intend to sell my life dearly.
DP111,
All well and good, but I do not think Islam represents the primary threat to us at this time. As bad as Islam is, and it should be given no chance to take root among us, it was not Muslims who raped 37,000 white women last year, and it is not Muslims who are flowing across the southern border in huge numbers, fueled by cartel money. In my opinion, the primary threat to Caucasian people in America remains wanton black and Mestizo violence.
Van Wijk said All well and good, but I do not think Islam represents the primary threat to us at this time. As bad as Islam is, and it should be given no chance to take root among us, it was not Muslims who raped 37,000 white women last year, and it is not Muslims who are flowing across the southern border in huge numbers, fueled by cartel money. In my opinion, the primary threat to Caucasian people in America remains wanton black and Mestizo violence.
I most fervently disagree with that. Illegal immigration or rapes are criminal activities, can be dealt with by normal police and judicial means. Islam OTH presents a quite unique challenge, as it is an existential civilisation destroying challenge. Nothing has ever come near to the West as a whole since 1683. The Nazis were truly bad, but despite that they were part of the West, and their triumph would not have led to the destruction of the core values of the West. Besides, the Nazis, with their rather crude methods, as well as being dependent on a core group, would not have survived a generation or two. Islam OTH not only has the creed of a religion, i.e., it is certain of its divine provenance, but unlike Nazism, continues through generations via birth and the inability of anyone in Islam to leave it.
If ever Islam gained power in the West, then everything that is the West will be destroyed. In India for instance, or in Alexandria, Muslim invaders deliberately destroyed the libraries, as what was in them was outside the Koran, and therefore of no value. Criminals or rapists are just simple criminals, it is outside the locus of their worldview to see libraries as a threat, and therefore destroy them.
The same applies to music and all the rest of the things that determine the civilisation of the West. For Islam, any but the most utilitarian function, is a reminder that the people had a past, and that at some time they may go back to it. It is for this reason that Islam will destroy churches, temples, and all signs of the past. It is for this reason that Muslims destroyed the Bhumiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan, even though Buddhists had been exterminated by Muslim invaders a long time ago.
I will not carry on for much longer as dinner time approaches.However I advise reading Andrew Bostom's book on Jihad, or the many works by Robert Spencer, Hillair Belloc, or Craig Winn's Prophet of Doom, which can be downloaded. (Google)
Nothing but nothing in the long history of humanity compares to the sheer brutality and scale of massacres and genocide that Islam has inflicted on humanity. Worse they do not even acknowledge of any wrong doing, as they believe that in killing Infidels, they are doing allah's work.
Nothing but nothing in the long history of humanity compares to the sheer brutality and scale of massacres and genocide that Islam has inflicted on humanity. Worse they do not even acknowledge of any wrong doing, as they believe that in killing Infidels, they are doing allah's work.
Brilliantly stated!
Part One:
Lawrence Auster on his blog praises at least one paragraph by "DP111".
I find two problems with it, however:
Now we know that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and law abiding.
When describing something this important, one must use words with extreme caution. Rather than "law abiding", I would prefer to clarify one of its possible connotations by substituting for it the descriptor "comply with our laws" -- for it makes clearer that all we "know" is their outward behavior and expressions. Secondly, in the same spirit, I would not use "peaceful", for according to the dictionary, that denotes "inclined or disposed to peace" -- which, again, implies more knowledge on our part than we possess about what Muslims really feel and think. I don't know what synonym would be better, but if one cannot be found, then at the very least an "apparently" should be attached.
The other problem I have with DP111's paragraph which Auster thinks is the greatest anti-Islam thing since sliced cheese is that it does not sufficiently clarify the necessary nexus between
1) the Islamic desideratum for sharia law
and
2) Islamic violence.
(It may be important to point out that #2 ranges all over the map in styles and tactics, from the Lone Wolf tactic of stabbing an individual to death, to the Sudden Jihad Syndrome of trying to mass-murder a more or less indiscriminate crowd, to urban violence including riots and/or intimidation, to threats of violence and/or "dry runs", to assassination cells, to terror cells, to commando raids, to guerilla warfare, and finally to more formal military assaults of warfare which, since the end of the 17th century, Muslims have only attempted against other similarly primitive Third World regions in various jihads but no longer -- for the time being -- against the West (we must assume simply because they remain militarily unable.)
This necessary nexus is often obscured by playing into the conceits of our own Western analysis of the problem: We assume there must be a division of "good Muslims" and "bad Muslims". The slightly more astute and learned among us do not, however, fuse the two groups into one -- for we are anxious to avoid the implications of such a "broad brush" approach that would make "sweeping judgments" against "all Muslims" and thus commit the now capital crime of "bigotry": So, instead, we assume that the "good Muslims" must be pursuing their supremacist expansionist objective non-militantly and non-violently -- and that that is the difference between them and their more violent brethren.
Part Two:
This construct fails, however, to factor in a number of things:
a) that Islamic violence, far from impeding the efforts of the non-violent "stealth jihadists", actually facilitates them, through two mechanisms:
i) the tried and true mechanism of thuggish terrorizing, which softens up your victim's resolve to resist the "Good Cops" who claim plausible deniability about being connected to the violent "Bad Cops"
ii) the subtler and perhaps newer mechanism of exploiting the West's dominant sociopolitical culture of PC MC, which is so fiercely anxious to preserve the hypothetical existence of millions of "decent Muslims" it only strengthens that hypothesis every time Muslims are violent -- exemplifying a kind of perversely irrational logic (and which thus is eminently duped by the "Good Cop/Bad Cop" tactic).
b) The construct also fails to factor in the fact that Muslims have never spread their solidification of control anywhere in all history except by necessarily integrating violence in one way or another into their expansionism. For Muslims to do so in our time would be unique: and Muslims don't do unique, for that would Bida (innovation). The rule of thumb here should be that Whenever Muslims are not perpetrating violence it is only because they either are unable temporarily, or recognize that they don't have to for the time being.
c) Finally, the construct fails to factor in the obvious -- but apparently not thought-through -- fact that Westerners will never voluntarily accede to such criminal (not to mention outrageously anti-liberal and anti-Western) laws as are enshrined in sharia. Nor will Westerners behave like strange zombies and simply allow through some kind of bizarre negligence sharia to become dominantly enforced anywhere in the West. No: when the rubber meets the road -- i.e., when sharia will have to come out of the closet of "stealth mode" and flex its natural muscles -- Westerners will have to be physically forced to comply: and Muslims will only be able to do that with violence, which in turn will require sufficient power (which in turn, requires violence to be achieved).
Interestingly, I was browsing the Jihad Watch archives and decided to read the (supposedly) very first entry, back in October of 2003.
In the comments section, someone named "DP" wrote something that apparently is very similar to the construct I analyzed above, and suffers from one or more of the same flaws. I wonder if that "DP" is the same as "DP111"...?
Here's the quote:
DP | October 28, 2003 7:59 PM
Many think that the Jihad is about the conquest of infidel territory. It is that, but more importantly, Islam needs to conquer the spiritual and intellectual territory of the infidel. To impose Sharia over the Constitution of the US, to get humble acknowledgement from Christianity that Islam is its superior. In other words to get us to accept their view of reality as they believe that their view is divine.
If they can get us to concede these, then a physical jihad is un-neccesary as they would have won anyway.
[bold emphasis added]
Hesperado
I agree with you that one must be careful in postulating the existence of peaceful, law abiding, moderate or otherwise, or any of the descriptors we may allude to in analysing, and therefore bracketing Muslims. However, my thesis took the very best behaving Muslims, for our purpose, the best-case scenario, and even then, the conclusion is the same. In fact it makes no difference what assumption one makes regarding the makeup of the Muslim population, as it stands- the conclusion is the same.
You wrote: b) The construct also fails to factor in the fact that Muslims have never spread their solidification of control anywhere in all history except by necessarily integrating violence in one way or another into their expansionism.
You are right. Violence is a necessary component of the process of the justiufication of the acquisition of Infidel territory. However that is normal.
Probably me( but its a long time back): Many think that the Jihad is about the conquest of infidel territory. It is that, but more importantly, Islam needs to conquer the spiritual and intellectual territory of the infidel. To impose Sharia over the Constitution of the US, to get humble acknowledgement from Christianity that Islam is its superior. In other words, to get us to accept their view of reality as they believe that their view is divine.
If they can get us to concede these, then a physical jihad is unnecessary, as they would have won anyway.
Actually this process is underway in the UK. Sharia is already operating in many parts of the UK. Sharia finance, the legitimising of sharia by the Archbishop, and many aspects of Islamic control, are facts on the ground. The BBC has been in full propaganda mode on the grandeur of Islam in contrast with Christianity. A BBC re-writing of the Crusades is underway, and will be broadcast globally.
You wrote: c) Finally, the construct fails to factor in the obvious -- but apparently not thought-through -- fact that Westerners will never voluntarily accede to such criminal (not to mention outrageously anti-liberal and anti-Western) laws as are enshrined in sharia.
The trouble is, that by the time we wake up, the Muslim population will be so large, that nothing short of civil war will reverse the trajectory. It will be a civil war, and not just Westerners against Muslims, as a significant number of Westerners will be against us. A civil war, leading to a partition, will, as far as I’m concerned, be defeat. The West will be sundered, and it will not be the West, in the civil or cultural sense any more.
Part 2
If they can get us to concede these, then a physical jihad is unnecessary, as they would have won anyway.
Actually this process is underway in the UK. Sharia is already operating in many parts of the UK. Sharia finance, the legitimising of sharia by the Archbishop, and many aspects of Islamic control, are facts on the ground. The BBC has been in full propaganda mode on the grandeur of Islam in contrast with Christianity. A BBC re-writing of the Crusades is underway, and will be broadcast globally.
You wrote: c) Finally, the construct fails to factor in the obvious -- but apparently not thought-through -- fact that Westerners will never voluntarily accede to such criminal (not to mention outrageously anti-liberal and anti-Western) laws as are enshrined in sharia.
The trouble is, that by the time we wake up, the Muslim population will be so large, that nothing short of civil war will reverse the trajectory. It will be a civil war, and not just Westerners against Muslims, as a significant number of Westerners will be against us. A civil war, leading to a partition, will, as far as I’m concerned, be defeat. The West will be sundered, and it will not be the West, in the civil or cultural sense any more.
DP111,
In response to the statement --
If they can get us to concede these, then a physical jihad is unnecessary, as they would have won anyway.
-- you wrote:
"Actually this process is underway in the UK. Sharia is already operating in many parts of the UK. Sharia finance..." [etc.]
Your argument here fails to factor in that
1) Sharia is not itself when it is piecemeal "Sharia Lite"; it is only itself when full-blooded (even if many Muslims in various areas of the world -- including, btw, Muslim countries like for example Tunisia where there is a higher degree of Sharia than in the UK, but where its full realization remains curtailed due to Western influence)
2) incremental "Sharia Lite" does not by itself harm the West -- it is only harmful if it is a stepping stone to real full-blooded Sharia
3) the process of transition, in any modern Western society, from "Sharia Lite" to full-blooded Sharia cannot happen without Muslims using violence.
Stupidly gullible Westerners can remain hoodwinked by "Sharia Lite" -- partially precisely because the artificial construct of "Sharia Lite" is relatively innocuous. But the vast majority of Westerners -- on all points of the spectrum from liberal to conservative (with only a rare minority of sufficiently diseased Leftists who might jump ship and join Islam) -- will not tolerate full-blooded Sharia, and would have to be physically forced through violence to do so.
If you recall my list in my previous post of various types of Islamic violence, all the types of paramilitary violence listed combined would still be insufficient to compel any Western polity to implement full-blooded Sharia: All those types of paramilitary violence are stepping stones toward finally gaining enough power to use military means of conquest. Muslims do not now, nor will they have, this capability, given the astronomic superiority of the West over them in all fields. The best Muslims can hope for is increased disorder and terror-anxiety on the part of Westerners.
I thus conclude that Muslims are simply unaware of how militarily incapable they are of achieving their ultimate goal of conquest of the West. What they will accomplish is the following scenario played out over the next 50 to 100 years:
1) increasing terror attacks, riots, random violence causing increasing disorder, dislocation and fear (coupled irrationally with PC MC solicitude for Muslims) -- all of which will cause enormous damage to the West in terms of infrastructure, lives lost and psychic disturbance, but which will not be sufficient to break us in order to conquer us
2) a belated, but ferocious (and eminently rational) backlash by the West, which will finally realize it is fed up with Muslims, and will deport all of them to a vast swath of land already occupied by Muslims (the Dar-al-Islam, roughly comprising territory from Indonesia to Morocco), will kill all who resist, and will then set up a vast geopolitical cordon around that swath of land militarily enforcing the global quarantine of Muslims to remain there and live out their Islamic lives as they please there, but nowhere else on Earth.
Hesperado
I know all this. Its no news to me.
Of course full blooded sharia is the goal. Of course sharia Lite is a step in that direction. And violence is a necessary component.
You wrote: 2) a belated, but ferocious (and eminently rational) backlash by the West, which will finally realize it is fed up with Muslims, and will deport all of them to a vast swath of land already occupied by Muslims (the Dar-al-Islam, roughly comprising territory from Indonesia to Morocco), will kill all who resist, and will then set up a vast geopolitical cordon around that swath of land militarily enforcing the global quarantine of Muslims to remain there and live out their Islamic lives as they please there, but nowhere else on Earth.
You are fooling yourself if that is likely any time soon. In the meantime the Muslim population will be so large, and they will be so well embedded, that nothing short of a civil war will set us free, and that will likely be at the cost of partition. Keep in mind that it will not just the Muslims against us.
Verdun analogy: The absolutely hysterical defense of this project by the mainstream Left...not just an argument that the imam has a legal right to build it, not even just an argument that people should refrain from objecting, but now an assertion that the mosque *must* be built...makes me think that this fight may turn out not like the historical Verdun, but rather like Verdun as originally envisaged by the German command: force the opposition to bleed itself to death defending an untenable position.
DP111,
You wrote:
I know all this. Its no news to me. Of course full blooded sharia is the goal. Of course sharia Lite is a step in that direction. And violence is a necessary component.
When previously you wrote:
"Actually this process is underway in the UK. Sharia is already operating in many parts of the UK. Sharia finance..." [etc.]
it was in response to the statement --
If they can get us to concede these, then a physical jihad is unnecessary, as they would have won anyway.
What then did you mean by "this process"? If you meant the slow but successful takeover by Sharia without violent jihad (which is clearly what the quote you were responding to meant), then you don't believe that violence is a "necessary component" -- or you didn't believe it when you wrote what you did about "this process" -- or you weren't making yourself clear.
Post a Comment