"Fjordman" has some recommendations for the West.

Not to submit to Godwin's Law, but it reads a bit like Mein Kampf. Substitute "Jewry" or "Jews" everywhere he writes "Islam" or "Islamic" and you've got a classic late 1920's Nazi screed. This must be satire.

Discuss the article on the merits. Name calling will not suffice.

Jardinero 1, please tell me that you didn't just imply that today's Muslims can, in any manner, reasonably be compared to the Jews who were fed to the Third Reich.

I'm not interested in the merits of the article; it has no merits. I was stating that the article and its arguments are analogous to Mein Kampf and the Nazi program. Read Mein Kampf; you will see what I mean.

All through the twenties, the Nazi argument went that the German nation and German culture were being undermined from within by "foreign elements" permanently at war with Germany. These elements included communists, internationalists, and the League of Nations among others acting as lackeys to "World Jewry" who took advantage of and manipulated these same elements to their own ends.

Fjordman makes the same argument except he makes the survival of "western culture" not "german culture" the issue. He names leftists, multiculturalists and the United Nations, among others as the lackeys of the Islamists. I suppose that if you can accept Fjordman's argument then you probably could have accepted the Nazi argument and vice versa.

Jardinero:

Two differences. There are a blllion and a half Muslims, there were maybe 50 million Jews in 1920.

And this time it's true.

Similarity: In 1920’s Jews throughout the world rioted when someone published a cartoon of Moses with a long nose, rioted and burned cars during High Holy Days, publicly stated their contempt for German culture, either tacitly or enthusiastically supported rabbi-issued calls for murder of non-Jews, blew up subway trains, murdered Dutch filmmakers, and put the filmmaker murderer’s portrait on their children’s lunchboxes.

Oh, wait. They didn’t.

You should read more closely. I wasn't making comparisons between Arabs and Jews. I was comparing Fjordman's arguments to the that of the Nazi's. They are the same. Here are some choice quotes:

"We should ban Muslim immigration. This could be done in creative and indirect ways, such as banning immigration from nations with citizens known to be engaged in terrorist activities. We should remove all Muslim non-citizens currently in the West."

"We need to create an environment where the practice of Islam is made difficult. Muslim citizens should be forced to either accept our secular ways or leave if they desire sharia."

"Do not permit major investments by Muslims in Western media or universities."

Read a little history. The Germany of the twenties was far more violent and dangerous than America is today and many Germans of the time thought the Nazis were truthful and their proposals justified. If you agree with Fjordman then you probably would have agreed with the Nazi's at the time. Congratulations.

Jardinero1 -

First, I do not completely agree with Fjordman - I do think his ideas you quoted are over the top. OTOH, I think he is right in general - there really is a mass movement by Muslims to, sorry for a cliche, take over the world. I think of Islamism as simply the latest totalitarian ideology, at least as vicious as Communism and as seductive to the underpriviledged of the world, which makes it as dangerous as Communism was. Strong ideological opposition to Islamism is necessary, and pride in Western culture is needed for that. One can not effectively defend something one does not believe in. Fjordman’s methods will never get implemented in their entirety (and a good thing), but I am all for him pushing them so that SOME will get implemented.

Second, I know you were not making parallels between Arabs and Jews. You were making a parallel between two rhetorics. I was pointing out the differences between targets of the two rhetorics, which make your parallel untenable. One rhetoric was not justified. The other one is. Simple as that.

You are not the first one to make such parallels, by the way. Every time any European dares to call things by their own names, someone accuses him/her of preparing a Third Reich with Muslims instead of Jews. It is a catchy accusation, and like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" a difficult one to defend against. I do not think Fjordman and those like him should even bother defending themselves. Anyone who seriously believes they are neo-Nazis would not be convinced, while those on the fence would be better convinced by Muslim outrages than by Fjordman justifying himself.

Second, I know you were not making parallels between Arabs and Jews. You were making a parallel between two rhetorics. I was pointing out the differences between targets of the two rhetorics, which make your parallel untenable. One rhetoric was not justified. The other one is. Simple as that.

In the 1930s, the Jews did not deserve to face extermination. Today, the Muslims do deserve to face extermination. Indeed, there is a big difference there.

But it still calls for us to play the role of Nazis.

Sigh. Muslims do not deserve extermination any more than Russians deserved extermination during heyday of Communism. Islamist ideology deserves to be destroyed, just as Communism deserved it, which frequently involves destroying or deporting actual individuals holding such ideology. It also involves reaching out to Muslims who do not wish to live under Sharia and making clear to them they are better off accepting Western values than being tacit accomplices to Islamists.

Although so far the evidence is they are not. Living in a Muslim neighborhood in France or England is a lot like living in an Italian neighborhood in 1920’s US. Everybody knew who Mafia were, but nobody spoke up. A Muslim in banlieue who speaks up against radicals, or cooperates with French police, has a short life expectancy.

"Don't Californicate Colorado"

That was a bumper sticker I used to see in the 1990s. It was aimed at those transplants who moved here to get away from the problems they perceived in California, only to turn around and demand that Colorado implement the same ideas that caused those problems. It only proved that you didn't have to go overseas to be an "ugly American."

The same should apply to those who wish to immigrate to America. If you want to come here to be an American (like my wife, my stepsons, and one of my daughters-in-law), when welcome aboard! On the other hand, if you want to come here but insist that we change to meet your cultural standards (e.g. Sharia law), then you're not so welcome. What's wrong with saying that?

we will never win a war against islam. if it is just a war to keep sharia law out of america, then we have already won, and there is no chance of us losing in the foreseeable future, and there is no need to eliminate islam from america to accomplish this.