A long and depressing essay on whether or not the game is lost for the West:
As Sennels explains, “we in the West have a longstanding tradition of tolerance and openness, together with the multicultural agenda pushed by the Left, the Media, EU and UN. The cultural osmosis can therefore go only one way: Islam…drags the West back into medieval darkness, with its limitation of free speech and pre-enlightenment-style acceptance of religious dogmas and sensitivities.” Sennels does not mince words, uncomfortable as they may make us feel. He is unsparing in his analysis, based upon years of practice, observation and close study.
RTWT.
Meh. I don’t have too much patience for this kind of thing. Multiculturalism will last until it starts to make the life of the average European difficult. Then they will kill them. A Medieval culture is not going to be able to win in any ultimate sense.
The First World’s collective diplomatic corps is still looking for the next Kemal Ataturk; and not finding him, shows a depressing tendency to hand an “Ataturk” nametag to every goat-molesting barbarian they come into contact with and then pretending it means something.
If diplomats and policy wonks were actually graded on long-term performance (and blackballed when their most current “agrarian reformer” proves to be what “agrarian reformers” usually prove to be) we would have much less of a problem.
What’s the largest nation for Muslims? Indonesia.
What’s the second largest nation for Muslims? India.
Both are relatively stable and have decent relations with the US.
It’s the Persian Gulf states we have schizo relationships with.
We can have access to the oil states or we can have a solid alliance with Israel,
but it’s very hard to do both.
David Solway is just another hate monger, no different to so many others. Such people can always rationalize their attempts to stir up conflict in the name of self defence,
Well, calling someone a “hate monger” is certainly a convenient way to avoid having a serious discussion about a serious subject.
What is “The Myth Of The “Moderate” Muslim” supposed to mean? That all Muslims are out to get Westerners and Christians? If that’s what the implication is supposed to be “flake” rather than “hate monger”.
Mind you, the point that if Western society hits really hard times society could fracture along cultural/racial/religious lines is valid, as an example look at the way prejudice and bigotry exploded during to Great Depression in
Americauh,Britainum,Franceahh, Germany, as a result of the bigotry stirred up by a few hate mongers.Rand, what concrete actions are you proposing? Are you proposing any actions other than a change of attitudes toward Islam?
No.
If you’re not mongering “hate” for Islam, then you’re certainly promoting some similar sort of negative attitude toward it, and if that’s all you’re doing, then Andrew would be correct to call you a hate monger (or fear monger, etc).
Consider the B612 foundation. You can’t call them mere fear mongers — they’ve identified a class of threats, and they have specific plans to do something about those threats.
In contrast, you don’t have a plan. I think that if you started thinking of specific plans to deal with what you perceive as a threat, you’d realize how horribly you’re overgeneralizing when you say “Muslim”, because any reasonable plan to deal with any threats to our civilization from Islamists will involve working with Muslims.
To me the thinking of the hate mongers seems incredibly shallow, in hospitals throughout the Western world Muslim doctors and nurses are working to save lives, and I’ve never heard anyone accuse them of letting their religion get in the way of them saving any ones life, millions of Westerners travel through Muslim countries every year, the incidents of religiously motivated violence against them would be huge if Muslims were out to get Westerners, every day hundreds of commercial flights piloted by Muslim aircrew land and take off from major airports throughout the West very rarely with lives lost.
We are told by people like David Solway that the Koran incites these medical workers, pilots and ordinary people to attack Westerners, apparently Solway believes he understands the meaning in the Koran better than all these ordinary people who read it everyday as part of their religious practice.
I see a couple of alternative theories to explain this paradox:
1. Solway and his ilk are right, and the Muslim world is just bidding its time, some day, these ordinary Muslim will start slaughtering Western tourists visiting their countries, flying their hundreds of A380’s, 747’s, 777’s and other international passenger jets into landmarks, buildings and packed sports stadiums throughout the West, and detonating all the mini bombs they’ve been busily sewing into their hospital patients.
2. Solway and his ilk are loonies.
If the former theory is correct there’s obviously no hope for the West, only intellects far superior to those of Solway & Co could keep such a vast conspiracy secret.
I must concur with MikeR’s “meh.” Watch for your buttons getting pushed. Granted, I’m sure the West’s prospects look a lot dimmer from Montreal, where the author of this piece (and numerous others of similar tone) lives. But the demographic math is not uniformly unpleasant, and lest we forget, the Boston Marathon bombing killed all of 3 people. I happen to think that a tremendous struggle lies ahead, one that we will someday see that we could have easily avoided with earlier decisive action. I just don’t think we’re going to lie down and do nothing after a WMD attack. The smart money is still on the US (and Israel).
My perspective on this whole subject changed recently, after I read a CNN report on the increase in fatalities from terrorist attacks in 2012. According to the report, fatalities from terrorist attacks jumped 64% in 2012, to 15,000.
That’s worldwide, mind you. It amounts to 0.214 per 100,000 people. The safest city on earth, Singapore, had 0.4 homicides per 100,000 people. Chicago had 19.4 homicides per 100,000 people.
It’s difficult now for me to support the massive destruction of wealth and self-imposed loss of freedom that the war on terror represents. By extension, it is difficult for me to disagree with Jay. I think we could ratchet our responses down a few orders of magnitude without incurring terrific risk.
Possibly. Another way would be to ratchet our responses up several orders of magnitude, for a very short while, and end that particular risk – permanently.
end that particular risk – permanently.
Women and children first? Probably not, better to send the men to the gas chambers first and do the undefended women and children later.
With all respect, this post is not about terrorism. I agree that our approach to that is stupid. But our approach to an ideology that is as, or more, opposed to western civilization as the Nazis (and in alliance with them at the time) is as well.
Rand – Apart from the obvious (to anyone not blinded by Islamophilia) fact that we are talking here about an ideology that has been at war with Western civilisation for slightly under 1400 years, the latest set of problems are entirely due to one of God’s nastier jokes – that of putting 30% or so of the reserves of a vital resource under the soil of the enemy. Before maybe the 1920s, the Arabs in particular were just as barbaric, bloodthirsty and utterly unreasonable as they are now – and nobody cared, because they were also dirt-poor.
Now, the same bunch of 7th century barbarians are rich beyond belief. What really needs to be done is to go all-out to make oil as irrelevant as possible – and then, once done, mine the Gulf, blow up all the pipelines leading out of the area, confiscate ALL their assets, evict all non-citizen enemies (AKA muslims) from the civilised West – and let them find out whether oil is edible.
I don’t, personally, give a damn how many of each other the barbarians kill or enslave. I do mind when they do it to us.
I find it odd that the NeoPuritans… oops.. the Progressives think a patriarchical religion like Islam is a ok, but another patriarchical religion, Christianity, is doubleplus ungood.
Simple. Muslims kill people and Christians generally don’t. Leftists just love mass murderers; witness the adulation of Che Guevara, for example.
I think I can explain the apparent inconsistency.
If Progressives give Christianity a score of 55% and Islam a score of 40%, while Conservative Christian give 95% and 5% respectively, in a debate between Progressives and Conservative Christians on Christianity, the Progressives will be pointing out that Christianity isn’t quite as wonderful as the Christians think, in a debate between Progressives and Conservative Christians on Islam, the progressives will be pointing out that Islam isn’t nearly as bad as the Conservative Christians make out, to the simple Christian, it looks like the progressive thinks more highly of Islam than he does of Christianity, without that actually being the case.
Andrew, you seem to be quite obsessed with this.
Let’s do a thought experiment, and substitute a word. Instead of “Islam,” let’s use “Nazi.” Because, you know (or maybe you don’t) the Mufti of Jerusalem was one of Hitler’s most devoted allies.
Do you imagine that there weren’t many otherwise good people who were raised Nazi, because, well, they were raised Nazi?
Do you think that there weren’t many Nazis who would have taken in and helped people medically? (There are numerous historical instances of this).
But how many of them do you imagine would have had the courage to denounce what the Nazis were doing? Were there “moderate” Nazis, or Nazis who would denounce Hitler and Goering and Goebbels?
Is it your position that we should not criticize Nazism, because there were many good Nazis? Would that be “hate mongering” Nazis?
Here’s the intellectual/philosophical challenge for you. What is the difference in the two cases?
Aside from the obvious that Nazism was a political movement rather than a religion, you should look at the title of your post. If we use your word substitution we get: “The Myth Of The “Moderate” Nazi”. But now you argue that “there were many good Nazis”
So were these “good” Nazis moderate Nazis or not??
Aside from the obvious that Nazism was a political movement rather than a religion
How do you distinguish?
Are you really that completely ignorant of the nature of Islam? It does not mean “peace.” It means “submission.”
In Islam, there is no separation between “church” and state. It is not merely a “religion.” It is an entire way of life, indistinguishable from government.
Rand, in any large group of people you’ll get diversity, my objection is the stereotyping of millions of people in, what to me is in all honesty, hate mongering.
This type of stereotyping is something I don’t do and can’t abide, it wreaks of collectivizing people in the name of a malicious cause, I don’t collectivize people by ascribing to all of them all sorts of traits outside if the primary reason to classify them, (all American citizens can be classified as American citizens but not as gun toting cowboys, all Muslims can be classified as Muslims, but not as terrorists etc.
What puzzles me is that you do do this sort of thing, Libertarianism is about individuality, how is it you don’t seem to recognize that individuality exists even amongst groups of people you’ve not had much personal contact with, that in any group you get the good the bad and the ugly?
For your consideration:
http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/10335/israeli-arab-waited-20-years-to-join-supreme-court/
Excerpts:
“Contrary to most Arab public figures, Zuabi does not hide the fact that he is a secular Muslim. Although he does not pray regularly and has never made the traditional pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina, he does fast during the month of Ramadan and refrains from drinking alcohol.”
“When forming the panel five years ago, Shamgar needed an Arab jurist on the commission for political reasons. And Zuabi was just the right person: a respected and experienced Arab jurist — and someone who had always stressed that he was a proud citizen of the state of Israel.”
====
Oh, and about the Mufti, here’s some Jewish/Israeli history you probably are not familiar with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)#Contact_with_Nazi_Germany
Shameful, maybe crazy, but true.
“Secular Muslim” is an oxymoron. What does that even mean?
“Secular Muslim” is an oxymoron. What does that even mean?”
It means pretty much what “secular Jew” means: culturally Muslim. Here’s a very short essay comparing secular Jews with secular Muslims:
http://insideislam.wisc.edu/2010/10/coming-out-of-the-closet-as-a-secular-muslim/
Or, consider this article, which is titled “Azerbaijan: Islam Comes with a Secular Face” http://www.eurasianet.org/node/67396
Of course, since language is flexible, sometimes people use the term “secular Muslim” to refer to the idea that religious practice should be separate from a secular state.
But either definition is at odds with your ideas about Islam.
Google “secular muslim” and “secular islam” to read more.
They’re not at odds with “my” ideas about Islam. They are at odds with Islamists’ “ideas” about Islam.
And what does “culturally Muslim” mean? Does it mean sharia?
I would be happy to answer your questions to best of my ability, but did you read my link?
http://insideislam.wisc.edu/2010/10/coming-out-of-the-closet-as-a-secular-muslim/
As for Sharia, again, I’d be happy to give you a more complete answer, but my first reaction is to cite Governor and future GOP Presidential Candidate Chris Christie, when asked about Sharia law in reference to someone who happens to be Muslim:
http://nation.foxnews.com/chris-christie/2011/08/04/christie-defends-appointing-muslim-judge-sharia-law-business-crap
I don’t care what Chris Christie thinks about much of anything. I don’t know why you would imagine that I do.
Find a Jewish person. Say to them: “So, you’re Jewish, that means, by definition, that you follow the 613 Mitzvot (commandments), right?” You stand a very good chance of getting laughed at. Sharia is like that. Let me know if that was too terse.
So, the simple answer to your question about Sharia is “no”. But the more complex answer is “yes, but selectively and non-fanatically”, just like the vast majority of Christians and Jews selectively and non-fanatically follow their religious laws, regardless of whether they consider themselves utterly non-religious, somewhat-religious, or very religious.
Here’s a way to understand “Culturally Muslim”: Go to Bosnia. Meet atheistic Croatians who will explain to you that they are Catholics, and meet atheistic Bosnians who will explain to you that they are Muslim. Or stay home, and talk to Catholics about birth control.
Look at the comments in my first link: the Pakistani guy who wrote it explained that he celebrates the fun Muslim holidays and respects the solemn Muslim rituals at funerals, and that won’t change if he becomes an American, so he’s a cultural Muslim, but he isn’t religious.
This Thanksgiving (coinciding with Hanukkah) we visited non-religious friends who waited until sundown and dutifully lit the Menorah while reciting the blessings (about God commanding us to light the lights), and then our hostess served had bacon wrapped appetizers. This isn’t atypical behavior — it is just how people who aren’t observant behave.
This isn’t atypical behavior — it is just how people who aren’t observant behave.
Those aren’t the people being discussed in the piece. They’re not really Muslims qua Muslims. They just like to celebrate colorful holidays. And they would be considered infidels in places like Saudi Arabia.
In Islam, there is no separation between “church” and state. It is not merely a “religion.” It is an entire way of life, indistinguishable from government.
Nice theory, pity it doesn’t square with actual observation,
It does not mean “peace.” It means “submission.”
So? Christians are always being told to surrender to God, I’m not sure how to tell when they have though.
OK, so clearly, you prefer to have you head up your as…in the sand, than to deal with reality.
No, I’ve given plenty of examples of reality, you’re the one who has failed to explain the reality of what we actually see around the world with what you claim is true.
So you will continue to bury your head, and not address my analogy?
I understand why. It strikes too close to home.
Like so many analogies, yours has no point, any other groups you want to compare to Nazism? It’s a silly game two can play all day.
Maybe you’d like to have a crack at explaining the reality we see in the diversity of the behavior of Muslim’s world wide, rather than apparently going along with the infantile theory that they’re all out to get us.
If you imagine that either I or Solway thinks that “they’re all out to get us,” you have a serious deficiency in reading comprehension.
Andrew W – No, they aren’t all “out to get us”. But, to a very large extent, they are prepared to tolerate, approve of, and even fund those in their midst who are. And it is a verifiable fact that the higher the proportion of Muslims in a country’s population, the more unpleasant, intolerant and barbaric that country is.
“Extremist Muslims want to kill or enslave you. Moderate Muslims want the extremists to kill or enslave you.”
Proof?
And it is a verifiable fact that the higher the proportion of Muslims in a country’s population, the more unpleasant, intolerant and barbaric that country is.
Looking through this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_by_country
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
I think you’re talking rubbish, take the US for example, (0.9% Muslim) one of the highest homicide rates in the developed world, the Maldives in comparison (98.4% Muslim) has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world, and there are a whole lot of peaceful countries with significant Christian and Muslim populations living together.
No doubt you and Rand will be happy on your strange planet living in your fantasies of religious hatred.
I am not Fletcher. But if you don’t think there is religious hatred among many Muslims, you are the one living on a fantasy planet. Have you been paying no attention whatsoever to what has been happening to Christians in the Middle East of late?
Rand, you appear to be unable to comprehend the title of your own post, no one is claiming all Muslims are lovely peaceful people, only that most are ordinary people (moderates) with no interest in conquering the West so as to fulfill your weird Islamophobic fantasy.
There may certainly be some significant percentage of Muslims who don’t necessarily want to restore the Caliphate, but few of them speak out against the true Muslims, because they are afraid to. That is the point of both my title and the linked piece.
Not directly related to your point, but I was curious about the Islamic worlds reaction to 9/11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_11_attacks#Islamic_world
Just this week, there have been reports on the BBC (which normally bends over backwards to pander to Islam) of Muslims in the Central African Republic (which has more than enough problems already) doing what they do best – spreading lawlessness, death and chaos among the infidel. Whole villages depopulated. Villages full of people running away to scrape out a bare existence in the forest, leaving all their extremely limited store of possessions behind. Blood, death and chaos. Again.
To take an example that I know something about, the UK; Sure, there isn’t much large scale death and mayhem. But the trial of two traitors who butchered a British soldier in a London street is happening right now. Also happening right now, virtually every night, is the spectacle of gangs of Muslim thugs beating up people in Tower Hamlets (a London borough) to “enforce Sharia” in “an Islamic district.”
And also still happening is the hidden plague of Muslim gangs, all over Northern England, grooming white teenage runaways and suchlike vulnerable underage female teenagers to be passed around their friends like party favours – and then murdered when the perverts are bored with them.
We don’t need less Islam in the West. We need no Islam.