Leave a comment below!
No brainer: that it become Islamic before it becomes a totalitarian humanistic despotism (i.e., a neo-Communism, which is exactly what sort of mentality the EU represents).
The worship of a false god derived erroneously from elements of true Revelation is a far less grave deviance than the total repudiation of that Revelation (and all the truths of common sense besides). Consequently, Islam has certain things in common with authentic Christianity — whereas, EU secularism is the total antithesis to the Truth.
Hey, at least the Muslims have morals. Also, there is already little in Paris to remind one of its Christian origins, except for a few tourist sites like landmarks and cathedrals.
I always wondered why the Muslim conquest in the 6th cent. was so easy.
I mean, these were a loose coalition of bandit raider tribes which any strong infantry could have mowed down.
Well, in Africa and the midEast, that infantry wasn't there anymore and the people had no stomach for fighting.
We see that in Europe now. The people have nothing to fight for because they don't believe in anything. Nothing is worth dying for. Few of what soldiers it does have have any sense of altruism - fighting for freedom, for themselves and others, preserving a great people and land.
Mark:
Was the 6th century conquest "so easy"? Those are probably not the words I would choose.
Belloc, in one of his books, speculates that the combination of economic stagnation, brought on by crippling debt, and exhaustion after the struggles with the early heresies (Arianism most notably) -- that these things together made the Christian East ripe for the picking.
Given comparisons between America and the EU on things like living standards, poverty, racism, social accountability, sexual and cultural freedom, number of wars started in the past 3 years and general population happiness, general hatred by the rest of the world, I think that what ever Europe is doing it should keep doing.
It will be the super power of this century. While America is paralysed with questions of religion and sex, the EU goes from strength to strength.
What ever they're doing, I think they should keep doing it.
For more info on the EU see:
http://europa.eu.int/index_en.htm
http://europa.eu.int/abc/index_en.htm
Theocracy is the future, pick your poison!
"What is preferable — that Europe continues on its path of secular nihilism... or that Europe becomes Islamic?"
If eu europe were to become eurabian it would be by different means than the islamic military conquest of 6th cent. It would be through migration and reproduction.
Ultimately there is not much difference IMO between an eu europe based on beauracracy and overwhelming govt control and a eurabia. Both ideaologies submit 'man' to law, whether it be allahs' or the eu's, and denies 'man' freedom to pursue happiness. Toelerance in this aspect is just to maintain order.
Eurabia needs the economic wealth and infrastructure of europe to continue if it is to be sustained. I don't see any evidence of the eurabians being anything other than menial workers at best.
Therefore unless native euros convert willingly (unlikely) the two will absorb each other and both be changed accordingly. The two need each other.
There are no islamic militaries who can match the anglo
There are no islamic militaries who can match the anglosphere and its allies therefore an eu eurabia is of no consequence.
The greatest fear IMO is if europe finds a sense of patriotism whether it be state based or continent based and turn on the Muslims in the same manner the Germans turned on the Jews.
My reason leans to the view that Europe will be consumed by its cult of death, but I do not despair.
I will pray that neither option comes to pass and that Europeans return to the faith of their ancestors.
Pray, Holy Mother of God, that Europe may again be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
"She writes a constitution which conspicuously fails to mention the faith that made Europe the teacher of mankind for centuries."
So did our Framers.
I agree with the above poster: on many quality of life issues -- teen pregnancies, crime, poverty, and even abortion -- Europe is better than the US. What they need to do is adopt a Pym Fortyn style attitude that demands the Muslim immigrants conform to their cosmopolitan cultural standards.
It's also funny how many of those "secular nihilist" European nation still have Established Churches, leading one to conclude that Separation of Church & State is better for religion.
Most of those "positives" cited in defense of EU can really be attributed to the current generation living off the hard work of those before them. The average Swede, for example, has a lower standard of living than the average black American. In addition the sexual and cultural freedoms noted are disappearing because the muslims, who care not for these things, are breeding and the native euro's DECIDEDLY are not, perhaps because they are too enthralled in experimenting with their sexual and cultural freedoms.
As far as wars started I really, really think you don't want to go there. Besides they don't have enough of an army to really start a war, they've been used to US protecting them for the last 5 decades. And that "general hatred" can in many respects be chalked up to simple envy, given how we all are quite apt to be taken with that emotion from time to time.
And when I continuall
And when I continually see in Europe that conservative points of view are shouted out of public discourse and decried as racism, well I'll say phooey to the tolerance they offer, and the same to their 2nd rate socialized health care. The EU is heavily promoting equality/tolerance and this is the enemy of democracy, for as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn noted, "if we want to establish a complete plain we have to blast the mountains away and fill the valleys; equality thus presupposes the continuous intervention of force which, as a principle, is opposed to freedom."
Sure things may be alright now for you, but they are built on a quite eroded foundation -- one that will be overcome either with despotism (in the name of achieving equality!) or by the emerging muslim majority, who will be happy to reconstruct this foundation, according to their traditions of course.
Mr. Rowe:
We have been over this before. The U.S. Constitution adduces Christianity twice.
"The greatest fear IMO is if europe finds a sense of patriotism whether it be state based or continent based and turn on the Muslims in the same manner the Germans turned on the Jews."
Bingo. If I had to bet on one, as opposed to picking a preferred one, this is what I would go with. If you think the gas chambers and gulags of the twentieth were the be-all and end-all of mass murders, well, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
I mean, I sure hope that's wrong. But if I were a betting man...
For whatever remnant of traditional Christian Euros who remain, I have to sadly conclude that dhimmitude is preferable to the continued rule of the degenerate ruling class, whose fondest ambition is the total eradication of Christianity. The state churches of Europe, which one earlier poster amazingly held up as an example of the EU model being beneficial for religion, are simply another branch of the soft totalitarianism already in place throughout the EU - a total farce. One will never hear the gospel within the wall of such "churches" - only liberalism and its endless genuflections to "tolerance", "diversity", and "peace."
Once the "religion of peace" denizens achieve critical mass, the ruling class will be in for the surprise of their lives, just as their fellow nihilist Theo Van Gogh was when hit by bullets from a jihadi in the gun-free utopia of the Netherlands. Like Van Gogh, the Blairs, Chiracs, and Schroeders will undoubtedly likewise beg pathetically for their mi
(finishing comment)
Like Van Gogh, the Blairs, Chiracs, and Schroeders will undoubtedly likewise beg for their miserable lives at the end - moral cowards unable to follow their nihilism to its logical conclusion.
Horrible as dhimmitude is, whatever remant of traditonal Christianity remains can at least survive for another day. Under the leftist totalitarians running things now, these people will be eradicated.
I thought I read Belloc on this but I can't recall it. The Christian East, though, seemed to simply end with hardly a struggle while Byzantium continued on for nearly 1000 years.
I don't see how the heresies could have enervated so many cultures across Africa and the East.
Crime in Europe is increasing and worse than in America in many places there. Teen age pregnancy is getting much worse in England. It is dying. There can be little doubt of that.
Dave, you've got to bring some thought a bit more serious to the table here.
Mark:
Well, for example, before Arabs conquered Roman North Africa, the struggle against the Donatist heresy inflamed the area; next, the Vandals sacked many of the major cities, including Hippo.
So Roman North Africa was clearly depleted when the Arabs came.
I think the Belloc book I have in mind is The Great Heresies.
Short answer: The question is meaningless, as the state religion of nihilism already is embracing Islam.
Long answer:
The question is a false dichotomy. European secular nihilism is the official state religion, regardless of the ongoing support for church buildings occupied mainly by aging pensioners. This nihilism manifests in many ways, the two most relevent being:
(a) The increasing trend of Europeans to not bother to have children
(b) The idol of multiculturalism, which demands that any cultural artifact, even one as hateful as clitordectomy, be respected.
These two facts spell the doom of Europe. Jihad need not be violent, it can take the form of defending Islam with words (especially “Taqiyya” and “kitman”) as well as the demographic jihad. Zoroastrianism in Persia wasn't entirely wiped out by violent jihad, demographic jihad played a role as well.
One of the 5 most common names for boys born in Amsterdam last year was "Mohammed". That same name is among the 20 m
One of the 5 most common names for boys born in Amsterdam last year was "Mohammed". That same name is among the 20 most popular names for boys born in Britain in 2004 as well. The welfare state makes it very easy for immigrants from the Dar al Salaam to live in the Dar al Harb without having to learn any new language or culture, thereby importing the Jihad into the heart of Europe.
Bat Y'eor has amply documented the fact that European elites decided 25 or more years ago to create Eurabia as a counterweight to America. The process set in place in the 1970's will go on, regardless of Turkey's entry to the EU or not.
Those Europhiles who praise Europe for its low crime rate are in a position of ignorance: France, for a start, regards crime statistics as state secrets. But it is known that there are many areas in cities such as Paris, Marseilles, Lille and others where Sharia law has a stronger hold than French law, where the police dare not go in less than groups of 10 or so.
The same is true in Malmo, Sweden, in parts of Copenhagen, in parts of Rotterdam...there are areas of Europe that are no longer European, but rather outposts of the Arab world. In these neighborhoods, Arab speech, culture and customs dominate.
The size of these areas will increase as the population increases. Absent a dramatic change, Europe is doomed to become increasingly Arab-Islamic.
We will never see a 9-11 style attack upon any cultural icons of Europe; the Eiffel Tower will not be toppled by a hijacked airliner or a truck bomb, becuse the Islamic invaders desire such symbols for their own. The muezzeins want to issue their call to prayer from the top of the Eiffel...and in time, it is likely they will do so.
Paul,
I still don't understand how struggling against heresy sapped all martial strength from the people involved. The attack of the Vandals was not repelled ably, and the Arab invasion was the coup de grace.
How was it that these peoples lost the will, power, or ability to fight while Byzantium survived?
Or was it for the same reasons Rome melted away, growing weaker every decade? Italy became a twilight world as the monk noted.
sorry for the rant earlier 
some excellent comments here.
The current descent into secular-liberal nihilism is preferable to Europe's conquest by Islamic hordes. After all, under the current situation there's still hope that nationalist parties like the Vlaams Blok will come to power and will put an end both to the secular nihilism and Muslim immigration.
Jon Rowe, Esq.:
I am interested to learn more of your views. Where can I find more.
Scof:
It's not envy that I hate America.
I fear America because it has the most Weapons of Mass Destruction on the planet and seems to believe it has unilateral power. Very scary stuff.
Zippy:
Of all the arguments I read on this site, I must admit, I find yours the ones which get me thinking the most (including the answers on sexual morality). Thank-you
Mark:
Dave, you've got to bring some thought a bit more serious to the table here.
Why break the pattern you guys started?
NotDhiimi:
We will never see a 9-11 style attack upon any cultural icons of Europe.
1) The World Trade Centre is not a cultural icon.
2) In terms of attacks, why doesn't the bombings in Spain count?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Mar..._Madrid_attacks
"I am interested to learn more of your views. Where can I find more."
My blog. Click on the link.
"We have been over this before. The U.S. Constitution adduces Christianity twice."
Ah yes, the customary way of stating the date.
Would you also conclude that, since our Constitution mentions the word, "Sunday" it endorses some form of Sun worship?
Mr. Rowe:
You choice of sarcasm is most unfortunate from your perspective. The mention of Sunday is a reference to the Sabbath.
"the customary way of stating the date"
Customary. Precisely.
Scof:
Besides they don't have enough of an army to really start a war, they've been used to US protecting them for the last 5 decades.
I suspect it's not as simple as that.
I heard today that until the eighties Europe spent dollar for dollar with the US on defense. During the Reagon administration, the US doubled their defence spending and Europe decided it would not - that it would invest in other things.
This idea would seem to suggest that
it would only be at max 2 decades that you have been protecting them.
Whether you were actually protecting them, or whether they actually found diplomacy far more effective than brute displays of might I can't answer.
Dave:
"1) The World Trade Centre is not a cultural icon."
The US culturally is 'trade': The symbol of the Trade Centre is functional as well as symbolic. The USs symbols are still living whereas europes are dead ie they are historic pointers to what they were. Trade is what built the US. OBL's attack was more a symbolic gesture than an attempt to kill as many people as possible - that's what terrorism is. It derives its power from the symbolic nature of its acts.
2) In terms of attacks, why doesn't the bombings in Spain count?
They do count but their symbolic significance is different to that of the 9/11 attacks.
Dave--
If you fear America, ought not you be prepared for an attack? What is Europe doing to defend itself?
The WTC towers were the tallest objects on the planet at their completion. As centers for business, trade and thus "Jewish Banker Conspiracies" they were clear targets, along with the Pentagon and the unknown target in Wash. DC of FLT 93. All were symbolic of the power of Western civilization.
European targets would include the Eiffel tower, the Vatican, various cathedrals, the EU HQ in Brussels, etc. They Jidad wants such things as Eiffel/Vatican intact, to demonstrate victory. The EU is already facilitating Islamization of Europe, so why attack it?
The attacks in Spain, both those that succeeded (in Madrid) and the one that failed are part of the jihad, but the Atocha train station isn't a cultural icon any more than the high-speed line between Seville and Madrid.
Obliterating the Alcazar might have some utility to the Jihad, if any serious number of Spaniards still knew what it stood for, or cared...
This is not to say that the Jihad won't kill more Europeans, either wholesale as in the Madrid rush-hour bombings, or retail along the lines of the van Gogh assassination. It is merely to point out that the symbols of European civilization are not targets, as they are increasingly impotent, and will be useful as proofs of the power of Islam in the next 25 years or less.
BWN
If you fear America, ought not you be prepared for an attack?
It's not the fear of agression we fear, but the fear of accident or stupidity on America's part. That they will distabilise the world by being a rogue superpower or bring the world to war with their unlateral thinking.
See:
http://www.abc.net.au/america/
le...30617_edgar.htm
We are fighting against it. Not by building bombs and so forth, but by doing things to remove the idea that American can act unilaterally or even that America is right. For example, writing newspapaer articles, running protest groups.
We are doing things like protesting the torture at Abu Grad and Guatanimo Bay, by speaking out against the miltary-industrial complex which runs behind your country.
For myself, I'm trying to understand the American psyche through reading American blogs.
Hope this answers your question.
Here's another link about how Australian's view America.
http://www2b.abc.net.au/america/forum/
Dave should clarify to readers of this blog that when he says "we" Dave means "he and his mates".
Australia is an resolute ally of the USA. 'We' have participated in every war that the US has fought. 'We' have just recently negotiated a free trade agreement with the US - US interests are very much the same as Australias.
Citing the abc as evidence of Australian attitudes would be like citing Michael Moores blog commenters or Noam Chomskys. The ABC is a leftoid black-hole.
Dave appears to be a 'tall-poppy' cutter - he fears the success of others which is at the core of his 'fears' of the US.
Come on Dave, a little bit of honesty mate. Don't cite the ABC - cite Howard's massive landslide victory - 4th in a row. Australia's intentions were revealed last election.
"he and his mates"
I'm glad you think I have mates.
I'm also impressed that you've heard of Chomsky.
I think the Howard's success has little to do with Australia's long term desires, and more to do with the amount of debt most of us have and the way he was able to play on those fears. The disintergration of the Labour party also had parts to do with it.
I also hope that you're right about the FTA - though if it's anything like the one that was worked out with Canada, I suspect it will benefit the US more than us. I'm not looking forward to having our pharmacetical benefit schemes and our copyright laws determined by companies in the US.
But let's not argue Australian politics here - no doubt we have very starkly different veiwpoints. I shall look at your site and see if I want to carry these on there.
Let us not forget for a moment how high the stakes become when Muslims take over nation states that are equipped with nuclear weapons. This is enough reason for the US to issue a severe rebuke to its "allies" in Europe so to salvage the world from these powerful nukes from getting into the hands of Islamists. But I am absolutely convinced that Europeans and Americans will come to a satisfactory conclusion by transferring populations of Arabs to their former addresses. There is nothing preventing nation states from declaring national security risks due to hostile populations and hence declaring hostiles as "persona non grata." I assure you, and I say with the utmost confidence that Muslim populations will be expelled from the West. PopX is the wave of the future -- I promise readers. There are no other solutions. If you have one I would like to hear it please. Sincerely yours,
Joan B.
Population expulsion is highly unlikely from countries where the governments cannot even bring themselves to encourage immigrants to learn a new language.
Or to put it another way, if the governments of France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Spain cannot even bring themselves to expel the Moslems overtly preaching destruction of Western civilization, how will they ever get around to expelling the day-laborers that pick up the garbage?
PopX appears to be a fantasy.
Muslim cleric in Britain, living on welfare, calls for world-wide violent jihad against the 'house of war'.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...1443903,00.html
The Brits cannot bring themselves to expel an enemy of Western civilization.
The notion that they will suddenly expel thousands of Pakistani Moslems is fantasy.
Not Dhimmi:
This conclusion of yours is relevant up until governments begin to fall contingent upon several issues: immigration, terrorism (inevitable under jihadi precepts), economic degradation.
The American is far more likely to conduct violence against hostile and foreign populations within the US than his European counterpart...because frankly Americans are more prone to violence when attacked on their home turf -- Thank G-d!!! But this reaction can spread fast to Europe, most notably, since the EuroEveryman knows the political elites have screwed them.
Bat Ye'or's book on Eurabia will be published in February. She spills the beans on the manner in which Europe has been deliberately and systematically betrayed to collaboration with the Moslem world.
SEE:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/
Arti...ReadArticle.asp?
In a nutshell, the French masterminded this alliance in a naive attempt to weld the Middle East to Europe as a power-bloc to rival America.
When th
JoanB:
I read the article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...1443903,00.html
Did you release you are doing much the same as the Muslim cleric. Using internet forums to incite hatred and violence amoungst your religious group.
I hope you also realise that by your words you are just adding fuel to a fire on which we all may be burnt.
Although I'm looking forward to Bat Ye'or's book, this type of either/or is very premature. A lot can happen in 5 or so decades. But I'll play along. Secular nihilism is unsustainable, just as nature abhors a vacum, it will be replaced by something. It would be better if that something were not Islam, because as you pointed out Paul, Islam is pretty stinking hard to undo. With out the Islam, a return to some form of Christianity remains possible. Gonna get worse 'fore it gets better though.
On Jan. 14 - 9 :21pm Pat wrote that his greatest fear is that “if europe finds a sense of patriotism whether it be state based or continent based and turn on the Muslims in the same manner the Germans turned on the Jews.”
If Pat means that it was the love of the fatherland (or patriotism) that made Germans annihilate Jews and Gypsies, butcher and enslave Poles, Ukrainians and Serbs and despise just about everyone who wasn’t “Arian” enough then Pat needs to look up his definition of patriotism, or perhaps refresh his knowledge of the nature of the German “turning on” the Jews and the rest of the peoples of Europe
Really, if patriotism leads to such monstrosities then why Brits ( for example) who must have loved their country very much to defend it so fiercely, at such horrendous cost and against all odds did NOT, after the victory, turned on the (civilian) Germans in the same manner the Germans turned on Jews?
It is true that one’s love of one’s country can and should make him
It is true that one’s love of one’s country can and should make him react, if necessary -violently, to her being invaded, but why such resistance, even armed one, must inevitably lead to genocide? Pat may speak for himself, but not for the Europeans at large.
It is interesting for me as an European to notice that Pat’s opinion is voiced ad verbatim by our ruling intellectual and political elites ascribing to those who want to stop Islamization of Europe the desire of genociding local Moslems. These elites are fanatical about destroying the Judeo-Christian identity of Europe and they view Moslems as their allies, so they are, naturally, interested in hurling such horrific and nonsensical warnings. But why would Pat want to disseminate such gibberish?
Another thing is; why nothing short of genocide would be necessary for reversing the Islamization of Europe when a much simpler, logical, humane and perfectly doable means of total stop to the wholesale importation of Moslems and unco
Another thing is; why nothing short of genocide would be necessary for reversing the Islamization of Europe when a much simpler, logical, humane and perfectly doable means of total stop to the wholesale importation of Moslems and unconditional deportation of Moslem extremists and criminals would suffice?
If that step is coupled with offering a regular Moslem a lump sum of, say, 50,000Euro, to go back home whether to Morocco, Pakistan, Jordan or Somalia where that kind of money represents a fortune, there would be very few Moslems left here.
I know quite a few Moslems here in Denmark who told me that if money is big enough the overwhelming majority would leave.
So why is Pat afraid that the only solution the Europeans are able to conceive is the Hitlerian kind? Will Americans resort to such a solution if in, not so remote future, you will have to deal with Mexican/Latino and eventually Moslem deluge?
Pat evidently thinks that if you scratch a European you will find a Nazi.
Mr. Hanski, I think if you scratch a euro, historically you may not get a nazi, you might get a stalin, a mussolini, a bonaparte etc.
And historically the euros run from problems they cause through colonisiation whether it be the dutch in East Timor, the French in Vietnam, the english in mid east.
So based on past performance why would your "ruling intellectual and political elites" make a sensible policy and enforce law and western culture where it is especially needed, ie their own countries, when they have shown a willingness to always pack up stumps when the going got tough?
'Patriotism' I agree was not the best choice of words but since the euros have handed over their nations to the eu I felt that the possibility of finding a sense of nationalism is impossible.
Since your elites have bottled up your citizens and handed them over to an enforced muliticultural dhimmitude, if the bottle were to break the pent up frustration of the citizenry may show itself in violen
Cont'd:
the pent up frustration of the citizenry may show itself in violence, as it has done ever so in europes history.
Really, pay the muslims to return from whence they came - only a european could suggest such a thing without a blush of shame at the indignity of the proposal.
I certainly don't propose "genocide". I see it as a possible citizen reaction to the ineptitude of their govt's. And it is a reaction that has historic precedent.
If euro pride is so diminished that they suggest paying ransom to hostage takers as a viable ongoing proposal, then really, what hope do you have?
Correction to that last comment: The Dutch in Indonesia in the Portuguese in East Timor.
To my eyes, a devotion to one's race, religion, culture (what is called patriotism) can degrade or be corrupted into facism if one is not careful.
In my thoughts, the difference between the two isms is the actions a patriot or a facist will carry out when faced with an attack on their culture. It perhaps is also the addition of rage, a sense of revenge or anger or the loss of the patriot's humanity that change patriotism into facism. I'm not sure.
Mr. Pat wrote two lines of nonsense a few days ago and now when he’s confronted with it he to defends it with a barrage of inanities. While he, the first time, was only wrong he, now, is imbalanced.
He doesn’t address my few simple questions engendered by his declaration, neither does he engage my remarks - instead he establishes a few straw men which he attacks with comical and sham indignity.
He also thinks that” if you scratch a euro, historically you may not get a nazi, you might get a stalin, a mussolini, a bonaparte etc.”
I assume by “euro” he means an “European”. If so, let me say that it all depends who is doing the “scratching” and for what purpose. Some will find “ a stalin, a mussolini, a bonaparte etc.” while others may find Martel, Aquinas, Shakespeare, Bartholome de las Casas, Newton, Goethe, Dostoyevsky, Churchill…and a countless millions who perished fighting Hitlers, Stalins and Mussolinis.
Cont…
Mr. Pat’s scratching revealed exactly whom he was looking for, which is only consistent with his horrific vision of the only conceivable way “euros” may stop their impending Islamization.
He asks “why would your "ruling intellectual and political elites" make a sensible policy and enforce law and western culture …, ie their own countries, when they have shown a willingness to always pack up stumps when the going got tough?
Mr. Pat, where exactly in my letter do I intimate that liberation of Europe will be led by our “elites”?
On the contrary, they have BETRAYED us, so if we should one day muster enough courage and hope we won’t wait for “elites”, but start with rounding them up and do to them what we used to do to traitors in our long and bloody past. Does names Quisling, or Mussolini and the manner they were dispatched by the ordinary “euros” ring bell?
I assure you if you do some more scratching of the “euros” you may find a long list packed with such happy events.
Con
Only after ridding ourselves of the traitors can we proceed to the real business of asking the Moslems either to go home, or to become one of us. By “one of us” I don’t mean abandoning Islam, but becoming citizens whose primary allegiance is to the country they’re citizens of. There will be a lot of protests and occasional violence, but when it comes to showdown they can’t possibly do very much against our still overwhelming majority and our armies…But there won’t be lynchings, woops, I, of course, mean pogroms.
Mr. Pat is shocked, SHOCKED, by my simple suggestion that some Moslem may be paid to go home.
He says: „Really, pay the muslims to return from whence they came - only a european could suggest such a thing without a blush of shame at the indignity of the proposal.”
Excuse me Mr. Pat, but exactly who would be committing such terribly ignominy? The giver, or the receiver ? Whose honour is going to be tarnished for ever in your patrician eyes by such an act? And why?
Co
If one day American government instead of lunacy of granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants sends them home, but also gives each some money to make the transition easier will the average Americans revolt?
Well, I have done some “scratching” of Americans and I found enough generosity and charity to make me doubt it.
I don't think they can be mutually-exclusive except in the intellectual abstract. The fact that Europe is becoming an increasingly multi-culti nihalistic culture weakens her and exposes her to expansionsit Muslims on her flank.
Mr. Gilbert,
Unfortunately, moslems are not on "her flank", or at her gates anymore, but within. This is indeed a most daunting new reality.
T. Hanski:
Intolerance, such as you display, leads to violence and hatred.
I hope our children aren't forced to reap the bitter harvest you are sewing.
Tadeusz, I see I have goaded your dignity and as for your response - as an Australian - I am obliged to say "Good on ya!"
I think we may be falsely at odds. I am not proposing and never said that "genocide" is the required response. I said that it is a response that I fear may result from the lack of political action, and suppression of the citizenry.
I concur with your sentiments that "Only after ridding ourselves of the traitors can we proceed to the real business of asking the Moslems either to go home, or to become one of us." However, may I suggest that you never "pay" them to go. The Oz attitude is "put up or shutup."
Your new princess was one of my countrymen which may indicate there is hope for you yet
I think the US is similar to Oz in that both nations were founded on immigration. It is part of our culture and economic structure. We know how to manage it. Perhaps europe could learn from our approach which is "those who work get to eat".
Dear Dave,
Yes, I am intolerant of fascism, islamic or otherwise, hatred, totalitarism, misogyny, bigotry, hacking off heads of infidels, whether on TV or as private amusement, chopping off hands, gang raping of infidel girls (also in Australia), genocide and enslavement of Sudan’s Christians, poverty, intolerance, stupidity etc, etc, etc.
Actually, the list is much longer, but the above mentioned items should give you an idea why we don’t want Islam in Europe.
Well, I don’t know about you, but during my visit to Australia last year I got the impression that majority of your countrymen are not too thrilled with Islamization of Australia either.
hatred, totalitarism, misogyny, bigotry, hacking off heads of infidels, whether on TV or as private amusement, chopping off hands, gang raping of infidel girls (also in Australia), genocide and enslavement of Sudan’s Christians, poverty, intolerance, stupidity etc, etc, etc
Your harsh words inspire others to hate. The blood that may arise from their actions is also on your hands.
Dave
hey Pat,
I didn't realize you are an aussie! And only an hour ago i read the rest of your postings. Please forgive my terrible tone it is clearly a case of a mistaken identity.
As for your suggestion that we “"never "pay" them to go. The Oz attitude is "put up or shutup."
I respect it and will think about it. After all I am Polish by birth and aussie's attitude fits people like myself perfectly.
And our aussie princess is just wonderful! She adds to things we love about you guys.
But I'd better go to bed now. It is 2:45 am here. Cheers..
Tadeusz
Dave,
My "harsh words"?
Yes, truth, especially terrible truth, may sound quite harsh. In comparison lies and prevarications often sound sweet and soothing.
So go ahead and keep on pretending that things will somehow arrange themselves for the best if you only keep on sticking your head in the sand.
BTW were born dhimmi, or did you have to study?
T. Hanski
'So many graves to fill. Lord aren't you tired yet.'
Dave,
You sound like a pooped undertaker.
And you still haven’t answered my question:
"Were you born a dhimmi, or did you have to study?"
Mr. Hanski:
"By 'one of us' I don’t mean abandoning Islam, but becoming citizens whose primary allegiance is to the country they’re citizens of."
I'm afraid this is a very bad way to frame the argument. The liberals will see fascism here because, well, there is fascism here. We cannot and should not expect Muslims to have a greater allegiance to the State than they do to their religion or their god. By extension, it seems you would require Christians also to make their country their "primary allegiance", and of course that is fascism and the negation of Christianity.
Nihilism or Islam?
The proverbial rock and a hard place.
Mr Culbreath,
Well, we will first have to agree on what constitutes fascism. The fact that “ the liberal will see fascism here” and obviously you too, doesn’t makes it fascism. Liberals scream fascism, racism, and bloody murder at anything which doesn’t match their manual for reality handling. That’s why for them Cuba, China, Vietnam and, in the past, Soviet Union, are definitely not fascist. Just ask their Goebels (N.Chomsky)
And, if as you say, “we can not and should not expect greater allegiance to the country they are citizens” then I can’t see a problem here. Indeed, let’s instead of giving Moslems such an option simply send them away. Would such procedure satisfy your and liberal’s standard for non-fascism? I am afraid not. If so, pray tell what CAN we do with Moslems short of throwing up our arms, sighing “Inshallah”?
And BTW, Christians ARE required, by Christianity, to make their country their primary allegiance - as long as country stays Christian….
Dear Mr. Hanski,
I suggest, in all seriousness, suppression of the Islamic death cult in the West, so that its adherents will send themselves away. That's not fascism: that's merely acknowledging that Islam is antithetical to Christian society.
As a former Lutheran (with Danish antecedents) I can appreciate your view that the primary allegiance of a Christian is the Christian state - but that is a corollary of the Lutheran heresy which, in fact, paved the way for modern totalitarianism.
The Christian's first loyalty is to Christ and His Church, not the State. The Christian's second loyalty is to those whom God has given him to love and serve above all others: i.e., his family. The Christian's third loyalty is to his local community and region. Somewhere after this comes allegiance to the State, which is not even a close second. Any state that violates this hierarchy is, at the very least, on the road to fascism.
Mr. Culbreath,
Nowhere in my letter I said that Christian’s first allegiance is to the State!
I would have to be a fascist/communist to accept such obscenity.
I said, "allegiance to Country" - NOT State.
By My Country I mean My People - the dead, the alive and the unborn.
Therefore, excuse me if, in view of your most acute misreading of my message, I find the rest of your posting incongruous (with my message) and shall not engage it.
T. Hanski: I've never heard the term Dhimmi before. But from reading its explanation 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi' I don't see it as insult. Thank you for bringing it to my attention - I am sure to bring it up when people say that Islam is a barbaric religion.
Jeff Culbreath: Very interesting. I like your thoughts.
T. Hanski: What scares you more? A Muslim tolerant Europe or the idea that the prejudices you have built your life on may be wrong?
Mr. Hanski, I apologize for misreading you. It is all-too-common for us Americans to use "country" and "state" interchangably. Nevertheless, the primary allegiance of a Christian is still NOT his country or his people, so my subsequent remarks do apply.
It's very odd that Wikipedia's definition doesn't mention the Pact of Umar which defines the restrictions of a Dhimmi.
I would suggest that Wikipedia may be doing the peecee dance.
It's very odd that Pat's definition doesn't mention the Wikipedia entry which describes the actual restrictions of a Dhimmi.
I would suggest that Pat may be doing the 'incite-to-hatred' dance.
Wikipedia is a secondary source, as valuable as it is. However it doesn't cite the primary source from whence it describes the "Status of Dhimmis". Note in wikis section on that topic it is paraphrasing the Pact of Umar without 1) citing and referring to the primary source and 2) excising the bad bits.
Note wiki's definition then goes on to "compare dhimmi status in Muslim societies with other laws and restrictions imposed on minorities in non-Muslim societies in the medieval period." This is not necessary given that we simply seek to know what a dhimmi is. The Wiki entry quite simply is watering down the subject.
Not in the preamble to my prior link that "Muslims leaders were required to work out a way of dealing with Non-Muslims, who remained in the majority in many areas for centuries." You may note Dave that they are no longer in the majority and that the remnants regularly provide us with our refugee intake. Why do you think that is if being a dhimmi is so nice?
correction:
"without 1) citing and referring to the primary source and 2) excising the bad bits."
should have read:
1)without citing and referring to the primary source and 2) excises the bad bits.
Dave,
“I've never heard the term Dhimmi before”
Wow!
“I don't see it as insult”
Wow, again!
“I am sure to bring it up when people say that Islam is a barbaric religion”
Oh, I am sure you will! And do pay close attention to why they may abhor living under Sharia. Oh, please, don’t say you haven’t heard the term Sharia either…
You may also try, instead of “bringing it up” observe the stampede of Christians out of the Middle East. Or, are you, beside being ignorant of a rather basic concept in Sharia, also ignorant of this, directly connected to Sharia, fact?
“A Muslim tolerant Europe” doesn’t scare me, but Moslem Europe gives me creeps. And as I told you before, yes, I admit being full of prejudices. I’m prejudiced against: misogyny, intolerance, fascism, Dhimmitude, stoning, stupidity… well, read one of my previous posting on the subject.
Good night.
Why do you think that is if being a dhimmi is so nice?
Islam is a religion which takes into account that there are other religions and that other people will follow other Gods. That they provide mechanisms to deal this diffence between people seems rather sophisticated.
Compared to barbarity of other religions which can be seen in the world today who cannot tolerate difference, this seems very sophisticated - especially as it seems to have its roots around 700AD.
Were I in a cranky mood, I could argue that the neo-conservatives with their intollerance of Arab ideals could learn rather a lot from Islam.
see: Pact of Umar
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/s.../pact-
umar.html
T. Hanski:
Prejudice is a lack of understanding. A lack of understanding is a prison. The world opens itself to you - when will you open your mind.
Dhimmitude requires Jews and Christians to wear distinctive symbols. Perhaps a gold star for Jews would be appropriate?
Dhimmitude means inequality before the law; a dhimmi's testimony in an Islamic court is less than that of an Islamic man, and often equal to that of an Islamic woman.
The jizya in some places was 10 percent of all a dhimmi's wealth. NOT 10 percent of income, 10 percent of everything.
Dhimmis may not build new churches or mosques. Sometimes they are not allowed to repair old ones.
Dhimmis are subject to jihad at any time; Maimonedes family fled Andalusia to Egypt in order to not be killed. Today in Egypt we see Christians subject to jihad, from refusal to issue ID's in Christian names to outright "convert or die".
Dhimmitude is a kind of apartheit, a kind of Jim Crow, a kind of slow strangulation of culture.
NotDhimmi:
Still it sounds like the Christians under Dhimmi did better than the Tasmanian Aborigines under Australian rule, or the native Africans under Christian rule of Imperialist Holland or Spain.
Unfortunately, it is the fact that the world contains many religions, races and opinions and that there will be wars and expansions where two are forced to live in a single society. Call this reality.
I think you can judge the maturity of a society by seeing how these differences in religion and culture are dealt with within the society. Given the inhumanity of many victors over their oppressed throughout history, I think Pact of Umar is quite enlightened.
Thank you for opening my eyes to it.
In addition to "dhimmi", some other terms need to be known. They include, but are not limited to: Sharia/shariya law, clitordectomy, "honor killing", taqiya, kufr, abrogation, jihad...
Discussing this from a position of ignorance is futile.
"Still it sounds like the Christians under Dhimmi did better than the Tasmanian Aborigines...."
Dhimmitude is ongoing as I write this. Are the black africans of Sudan "doing well" also? How about the slaves of Mauritania, or the 10,000 Christians killed in Indonesia over the last few years?
Why is genocide by Islam acceptable, please?
Dave,
Perhaps, if the Pact of Umar is a consummate model of the perfection of justice as regards the interrelations of differing religious groups in a multiconfessional society, we ought to consider the following thought experiment: impose upon the Mohammedan residents of the United States all of the disabilities to which the dhimmi are subjected under sharia. I suggest that if the results of this thought experiment impress you as unjust in any way that you cease praising the Pact of Umar and acknowledge it for what it is: a mechanism for cultural genocide against non-mohammedan subject peoples.
Guys:
Do you control your fears or do your fears control you? I suspect the latter.
"Your harsh words inspire others to hate. The blood that may arise from their actions is also on your hands."
hey dave,
what's the alternative? say nothing & wait to be killed....
-------------------------------------
on another note:
...you are probably right, instead of defeating the Taliban with brute force we should of sent Madeline Albright to negotiate....clearly that was the better solution, anything to avoid war... especially since we all know about how much the loving & peaceful religion of islamic extremist repect woman in that regime.
I think, instead of wasting time trying to debate a chronically pubescent and obviously very lonely and maniacally attention-craving, individual, who would say anything– no matter how idiotic - just to be noticed, we should return to the question presented by Mr. Cella; “What is preferable — that Europe continues on its path of secular nihilism… or that Europe becomes Islamic?
I am afraid the distinction between these alternatives may be illusory and Europe proceeding on “path of secular nihilism” MUST become Islamic.
I believe that no society/civilization can in the long run survive secular nihilism and must rapidly collapse from moral and spiritual exhaustion. When that eventually happens Europe will present no resistance to the robust and, by then, well established here Islam. In fact, the spiritually starved ex-Christians may themselves choose Islam attracted by its crude, but easily understood promise of transcendental meaning and justice. Tragic, but imminently probable.
Dave,
Please, for your sake and ours, stop trolling. Fear is not my master; my judgment that Islam is utterly incompatible, it's "civilizational" ideals irreconcilable, with those of my own heritage is a judgment of reason - so much so that such a conclusion is self-evident upon an examination of the historical record.
T.Hanski,
I agree. Let us return to the discussion of the question proposed by Mr. Cella. And again, I agree with your sense of the course of European civilization. Europe embraced, to a degree as yet unknown in America, the nihilism of the Enlightenment, namely, that all in the world of men must be oriented toward the production and fulfillment of the autonomous individual, each of those terms having a more or less technical sense in philosophy. Autonomy refers to the state of detachment from all inherited and societal forms, except insofar as these have been justified by the reason of the individual, meaning that the individual reconstructs, or to ma
... to make the significance of the mental operation more explicit, posits them as an extension of his own willed sense of reason. Individualism serves to narrow the focus of autonomy, severing the person from even those warring religious factions to which some sense of autonomy could be ascribed in the centuries prior to the Enlightenment.
In consequence, there no longer exist shared, historically grounded ideals, of the sort necessary to sustain European civilization, that can command the allegiance and obedience of a critical mass of people, for everything must be referred to the individual as to a measure. In other words, the philosphy of the preceding centuries has not so much created a new European order as subverted and negated the old, rendering the continent hollow, spiritually speaking.
.... This absence of a societal core means that Europe cannot truly confront Islam for what it is: a rival civilization and a challenge. Europe will vacillate between allowing each individual to make of Islam what he will and proclaiming the value of "tolerance", which is the modern expedient for negotiating the absence of a shared conception of reality, the absence which is the offspring of modernity. Recent talk of compelling Islam to submit itself to European norms will, more likely than not, come to naught, as there are precious few muslims who wish to embrace European nihilism. They have their own brand, thank you very much. Islam, then, will, by default, become the one public philosophy capable of exerting itself as a force for civilizational order in Europe: Europe, having nothing more than faith in the value of autonomy, cannot sustain itself. Islam will be the only creed left standing.
Mr. Hanski,
(BTW didn't I tell y'all not to waste time on Dave? He's not a serious man.)
I'm not sure that Euro nihilism inevitably leads to Muslim conquest from within, but it must lead to something and that usually means home made fascism of some kind; a rebirth of demagoguery, a seeking after power with violence.
Rome lasted a long time while various men became Emperors by violent means, and fell by violent ones. When there is that much wealth concentrated in a place, it can support a degenerating culture for a long time before it is exhausted it seems.
There is always a reaction at some point to those who are making a nation commit suicide. And such reactions are usually incredibly brutal - genocide is not unusual. Final Solutions abound.
It's funny that because we no longer consider enslaving others an option, what is left we conflict becomes extreme is annihilation.
It doesn't take a selfish nihilist/hedonist long to grab a weapon and start killing indiscriminately once he's been gored.
Jeff M.
Odd as it sounds, I am not too happy you share my opinion. Also, I admit I did not think of nihilism in the terms used by you – “…that all in the world of men must be oriented toward the production and fulfillment of the autonomous individual, …” Are you sure this is the essence of nihilism, rather than one of its corollaries? I’d better read about it…
I know too little about the historical roots of the merry death-wish that ravages our civilization today. I often read opinions that the sickness somehow started with the Enlightenment and slowly, but surely gained momentum to acquire today’s form of the happy death. What interests me here is whether one can conceive of an “Enlightenment” which would not have eventually brought the effects we see today. I believe that the secularization of the public square ushered by the Enlightenment sped up the tremendous scientific, technological, industrial and social development (probably at the expense of art, philosophy and,
certainly, religion). Now was it possible to keep on giving to God what is God’s and to Caesar what is Caesar’s without the latter slowly, but steadily banishing God to the periphery of our social lives and still harvest the material gains set off by the Enlightment? Or does one preclude the other?
My other question is will Americans heed the dire development here and have enough sense and will to rein in the rampant liberalism, reject the Multiculti madness and assert positively and unabashedly its Judeo Christian heritage? Is it at all conceivable now when the racial and ethnic composition of America has changed so dramatically and keeps on changing. Can it be achieved peacefully? I read somewhere about the increasing attraction Islam has on the Latin immigrants and of course, the blacks.
Something tells me that if Islam succeeds in controlling its most radical element long enough, America, too, may fall to its lap like a ripe pear.
Recent talk of compelling Islam to submit itself to European norms will, more likely than not, come to naught, as there are precious few muslims who wish to embrace European nihilism. They have their own brand, thank you very much.
Something tells me that if Islam succeeds in controlling its most radical element long enough, America, too, may fall to its lap like a ripe pear.
It doesn't take a selfish nihilist/hedonist long to grab a weapon and start killing indiscriminately once he's been gored.
---
(BTW didn't I tell y'all not to waste time on Dave? He's not a serious man.)
Serious or not, it easy to see that your words of hate dressed up prettily are still words of hate.
To my mind, your lives are trapped with in your own small views of yourself and the world. You'd be happier individuals if you actually freed yourself from your self-imposed thought. Go out and get some real information.
Perhaps, I'll take this minute to discuss why I dislike your diatribes.
Most of the arguments on this site have the starting point:
Christianity is the correct faith - all other faiths (Islam) or lack of faith (nihlism) are incorrect.
The naturally leads to arguemnts along the lines of what do we do with these wrong religions, which one is more wrong, how can we get rid of them.
In my view, the most important argument you guys could be having is "Is Christianity really better than the alternatives."
The failure to address this question, in my opinion, leads to a rise in intollerance, insensitivity to other religions. Insensitivity and intollerance are integral to such horrible actions such as genocide and wars of agression. Hence through your own words you are marching closer to insanity.
I also guess it is cowardice that prevents you from gazing at your own selves and asking 'Are the values I have based my life on wrong?'. I know it is a hard question - but it
I know it is a hard question - but it is perhaps the most important one.
When you guys can address the question, "Is Christianity really better than the alternatives." truthfully I shall respect your opinions more.
Mr. Butterworth,
You say “it must lead to something”.
Well, islamization is definitely something, so why don’t you believe in that particular variant of something?
You add “that usually means home made fascism…(what is that?) seeking after power with violence”.
“Usually”? Could you list historical precedence when, like in Europe now, governments in pursuit of the newest utopia intentionally flood their countries with multitudes of inassimilable aliens in order to replace the national and indigenous with global and multicultural? Certainly, Rome doesn’t provide an example.
Never before we have seen such horrendous treason performed behind such nobly and humanistic sounding slogans. European governments will do everything to ease tensions between the indigenous and the settlers. Their very life depends on smoothness of the transition from national to multiethnic. There is tremendous wealth accumulated in the EU and much of it is used to bribe both sides,
until the number of aliens and the territory they settled on is so great that it is too late to reverse the process.
There now are very few natives left in, for example, Gloucester, Manchester, Rotterdam. or Marseille. If anything it will be the newcomers who will chase out the natives rather then the other way around.
But the disadvantage of the natives is not so much in their dwindling number, but in the corrosion and puniness of their values. It is the moral that is lacking.
Today, one can not try to rally people of any European country under the slogans “For God, King and Fatherland” without making people laugh. These ideas are not just totally discredited – they are comical. There are new slogans now and the most venerated is “We All Have the Right to be Here”. Opposing it brings an automatic anathema of racism, terminating one’s political life. By comparison, a Moslem politician can’t possibly have backing of his community without stressing his obedience to Islam.
You point at ex Yugoslavia and claim that there indeed the minorities resorted to quite extreme violence in order to preserve their ancient turf and therefore the same will happen in the West.
But the Serbs, Croats, Bosnians are, beside their ethnicity, Orthodox, Catholic and Moslems - and their particular ethnic and religious identities enforce each other. There are raised on national, tribal, religious myths and proud of them.
But Danes, Swedes, Dutch, Germans, are raised with tolerance, or rather horror of (their own) possible intolerance.
The decades of leftist indoctrination disconnected them from their history, tradition, religion, pride – in short they have no identity robust enough vis a vis Islamic one. I believe that people without identity are emasculated people. They are a loose assembly of eunuchs, capable of conducting their own private affairs, but never to act as a cohesive unit. Especially a fighting unit.
You are not he first I heard who believes that eventually the natives will explode with violence. Not just a sporadic violence, but Nazi-like, or Turkish (against Armenians and Greeks) organized, systematic, genocidal extermination action. But those who mention such a possibility still don’t see that the Germans had tremendous sense of national identity, faith in their historical uniqueness and superiority and the sense of global mission. They were not settling small accounts with those Jews, Poles or Gypsies. They got drunk with history. Hitler knew how to harness that volcano.
And Turks, of course, were just Moslems. To them slaughter (of the infidel)comes naturally.
T. Hanski.
Is the change of a nation through peaceful means from one set of beliefs its death - or just its evolution.
One may point to religion and show how science has transformed it into something more relevant than the religion of the middle ages?
Religion didn't die through exposure to science - it evolved. The same I suspect is happening and will continue happening in Europe.
Lao Tzu said that the first step to wisdom is to call things by their right names. Accurate definitions matter, inaccurate definitions lead to false premises, and no meaningful conclusion can be built upon a false premise.
An adequate discussion of nihilism can be found at:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm
Cella's description of modern Euro-state religion as "secular nihilism" is thus a bit redundant. However, it is adequate for the discussion. As I and others have pointed out, given the demographic implosion of Europeans in conjunction with the demographic jihad, Islamization is the default future,
sooner or later, faster or slower.
Definition and examples of dhimmi and dhimmitude are at:
www.dhimmi.com
Definition and discussion of Jihad and other terms I listed earlier can be found at:
www.jihadwatch.com
Finally, if persons wish others to respond to their questions, they must extend the same courtesy in return.
To refuse to answer questions while engagi
To refuse to answer questions while engaging in name calling and asking semantically loaded questions is not useful debate.
Dave:
"Is Christianity really better than the alternatives?"
Yes, it is; it is better because it is true. And this is a conclusion that we here(most of us) have arrived via the operation of human reason.
The truth of Christianity is not an open question on this weblog. I feel not the slightest shame or unease in saying this. The Liberal cant, which derives from J. S. Mill, that "all questions are open questions" is incoherent (because even it declares that one question is closed: the question of whether all questions are open); and I will have no truck with it.
Several of my loyal correspondents and commenters have complained about your trolling and snarkiness. Your next disrespectful comment will be your last.
I thought the idea of placing ideas in the public square was to argue with them - I suppose I was mistaken.
I will make this my last post.
Thank-you for letting me voice my frustrations. I have always found that only through argument with those who believe the opposite of ourselves do we really find who we are.
Through our discussions, I have found out more about how I feel about Islam, Christianity, Christians, morality, God, those who follow God, what I believe is good and what I believe is bad than I have for many years and I thank you for it.
Zippy - you are a great arguer. Keep up the good work.
Paul - you turned me against any thoughts of re-joining the church I left so long ago.
engaging in name calling and asking semantically loaded questions is not useful debate
This has always been my point.
Villification of Islam and asking questions about which is better a tolerant Europe or an Islamic Europe are examples of name calling and semantically lo
engaging in name calling and asking semantically loaded questions is not useful debate
This has always been my point.
Villification of Islam and asking questions about which is better a tolerant Europe or an Islamic Europe are examples of name calling and semantically loaded questions. They lead to bigotry and religious intolerance. Anyone particiating in them is morally culpable.
You didn't like it - how do you think Muslim's feel?
I'll leave you with this final thought.
We are surrounded by our choices. I choose not to hate Islam, but to try to understand. I can live with my choices. I hope you can too.
Peace be with you.
Give it a rest Dave. Being a sanctimonious windbag doesn't clarify any argument, it just turns people off.
If you had opened with your last comment we would have known your basic argument: by equating the "secular nihilism" of Europe with "a tolerant Europe" you give yourself away - you are a leftist. All your thoughts flow accordingly - "asking questions..." of Islam is a big no no for you, because , you are tolerant (we all bow our heads). You even equate examining islam to choosing to "hate".
You've got no chance of understanding islam if you don't question it.
If you disagree with the assumptions made then say so - don't just harangue people with your moral ju-ju.
Paul has welcomed you to debate - not harass. Peace with you also.
A friend has just called telling me of an error, or what he hoped to be an error, in my posting of 01.19.05 - 5:17 pm
“… will Americans heed the dire development here and have enough sense and the will to rein in the rampant liberalism, reject the Multiculti madness and assert positively and unabashedly its Judeo Christian heritage?..”
I am sorry. It, of course, should have been “their Judeo Christian heritage” - not “its Judeo Christian heritage”.
I hope those who read the posting attributed this nonsense to an oversight rather than my going mad. Still, it is better to be sure, especially when English is not one’s first language.
T.Hanski,
I hope that you aren't too disappointed in leaning of my agreement with your analysis of Europe's likely future. I'm not especially cheerful about it myself; in fact, it is something that fills me with dread in the dark of the night.
As to the enlightenment and nihilism, I concede that my position is somewhat eccentric. I never found the standard storyline convincing, probably because I spent a bit of time during my university years inquiring into all of the bizarre religious and intellectual currents of the late medieval period, of which glimpses were revealed periodically, but which managed to receive much greater currency with the advent of modern (17th cent.) and enlightenment philosophy.
Think of the heretical movements of the middle ages; they were not proto-protestant, as many believe: they were largely gnostic. Think of the nominalists. The neoplatonists of the renaissance, whose "thought" was more occult than philosophical.
Dave,
If I may speak for Paul, this is not the public square, it is Paul's private property provided to us by Paul's generosity of time and money. Therefore it is Paul's perogative to include, exclude anyone he so chooses. I commend Paul for having much more patience than I. How to deal with disruptors is being discussed around other blogs as serious people with various opinions are rudily harassed by smart alecs whose only objective is to disrupt.
Cont.
What bound these disparate movements together - what linked them in opposition to Christianity, that is, even thought one would be hard-pressed to document actual instances of cooperation in many cases - was an emphasis upon will. As in, "I will.", the declaration of revolt, of intention to seize the prerogatives of divinity for oneself. Admittedly, this is obscure in the case of nominalism; however, if there are no essences, then it follows that any order must be an artifact of will.
One is unaccustomed to thinking of the enlightenment in such terms. Nevertheless, all of the prattle about reason and rationalism should not be permitted to obscure, as was the intent of many enlightenment writers, what was truly taking place.
cont.
In other words, there is the esoteric enlightenment, and then there is the version devised for public sale and consumption. Kant, regarded by many as the pinnacle of enlightenment rationalism, in an obscure passage, wrestles with the implications of modern science for the conception of freedom which he takes to be essential as the very foundation of a rational morality. He concludes, essentially, that science is to be reconceived as grounded in will, creating the intellectual space for the positing of freedom as the foundation of ethics.
The details are no longer so important, except, perhaps, to specialists in Kantian studies or eccentric philosophers; but the consequences are enormous: no less than mystical neoplatonists striving to achieve divinity, and no less than postmodernists, Kant admits, if obscurely, that the transcendental ego wills that which is necessary for its purposes.
cont.
Admittedly, there is a great distance between the esotericism of the enlightenment and modern politics, oriented towards the self-creation of the individual. Thankfully, here in the US, we have the sages of the Supreme Court to vulgarize 800 years of meretricious philosophy, expressing the ideology of modernity as follows (I paraphrase): "At the heart of liberty is the right to define for oneself a conception of meaning, life, the universe...."
To state the matter explicitly: that is nihilism, inasmuch as the absence, real or presumed, of a common measure of reality, is the very fulfillment of the definition of nihilism. There is nothing save that which one impresses upon the ceaseless, objectively meaningless flux of the world. Stated otherwise, meaning, and any related concept or idea, is, by nature, transpersonal, objective, communal. A private meaning is akin to a statement to the effect that a particular shade of white looks black. Absurdity. Nihilism. And i
Cont.
And it was therefore impossible for the enlightenment philosophy to be accepted publically, while people continued to render unto God that which is due Him in private, without the eventual consequence of the withering away of religion and beauty coming to obtain. Nihilism is not a mere idea of negation; it is an intellectual and spiritual weapon. One does not negate all meaning simply in order to destroy all order, unless one is mad; one negates all existing order so that one might become the source of all order. Europe will learn that a civilzation cannot endure having hundreds of millions of sources of order, as will America, somewhat later. There can be only one.
Jeff M.,
Well, ”disappointed” may not be the best word, but neither is any of its antinomies I could think about.
But I am glad you addressed me again, because in the meantime I read an essay, recommended to me some time ago, about nihilism by someone with whose position on most urgent and crucial matters involving the survival of the western civilization I quite agree.
It is by y Eugene (Seraphim) Rose and the title is “Nihilism: the Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age”.
I have no academic, intellectual background and, therefore, I have only rudimentary, for not to say “hearsay”, information about Enlightenment/Nihilism, so I am quite happy to see that it confirmed my intuitions about these matters.
Please read the essay if you should find the chance. I wonder if also this time you shall share my opinion.
About Gnostics and nominalists I know even less than about nihilism or enlightenment generally. I will try to look it up when I can.
Jeff. M.
I just realized that I have only seen the first segment of your posting.
I must have accessed the “comments” in the time interval after your sending the first part, but before the subsequent part had arrived.
Will try to read (and hopefully understand) the remaining piece before going to bed.
T. Hanski,
You make strong arguments for the melting of Europe, and it was not my intention to refute them so much as to pose a possible alternative.
Even in an enervated population, young men want to be men and act like men with force and violence if they think it necessary.
The kind of brutality and genocide which explodes in Final Solutions and ethnic cleansings has a long tradition in that part of the world, and I would not be surprised that such a Reaction might occur.
con't.
In fact, the lack of moral learning and teaching of virtue there, the more easily people respond emotionally and with instinctive violence to attack.
How many Van Gogh murders would it take before the Dutch respond? I don't know, but I don't think it will take too many more; and if the sense of asault from the Muslims among them upon them increases enough, the reaction could be devastating for the Muslims.
You doubt that Europeans can rouse themselves out of there nihilistic hedonism to act, but I have a pretty good idea of people when what they want is interfered with when they are used to having their way in most things.
con't.
Nevertheless, we will have to wait and see since many cultures which were weak and lax have been overwhelmed by a more aggressive invader.
Still, people backed up against a wall usually do fight.
What "Jihad" ultimately means:
Ask Theo van Gogh...
Or ask the Coptic Christian community in New Jersey, USA. Consider what the link below implies, if the information is correct.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archiv...ives/
004740.php
I find myself wondering to what extent the suppor of Islam by the Left is merely another variation on the endless perfectionist critique of Western civilization; i.e. the West fails to achieve the perfect societal dream of the Leftist, therefore Islam is touted as a credible, real alternative?
Although I think the Left support of Islam does come from the self-loathing of the West, but I don't think it is truly seen by the Left as a credible alternative. Some may be fooled by the True Islam = Peace, and therefore see it as "peaceful" therfore support it. But I don't see mass Leftists conversions to Islam. Mostly they see it as stick to beat Christianity and the West with. (thus always touting Islam's great achievements and downplaying its faults).
I agree. The Left's primary motivation is self-loathing. Islam is only an instrument of self-flagellation, so to speak; it is not admired for its own sake.
[Left wing support for Islam]
"Mostly they see it as a stick to beat Christianity and the West with."
Agreed, that is what I was attempting to write in the sense of "endless perfectionist critique of Western civilization".
I wonder how long it will be before the Left progresses from this stage to the "yes, but" stage, as we saw in the Cold war (and see even now with regard to Cuba). "Yes, clitordectomy is wrong, but..." and so forth.
Mr. Butterworth,
“How many Van Gogh murders would it take before the Dutch respond?”
But the Dutch DO respond already. They pack and leave!
There is a veritable exodus of the Dutch - typically to New Zealand, Australia, Canada. Not so much to the US, because for peace and coziness loving Dutch Americans are too religious, too patriotic, too serious about their freedom, too violent about defending it and too loathed by the third world (especially the Moslems).
Dutch want peace and safety. The Dutch, like people who hurry away at the sight of street violence, don’t want to get involved. Certainly not for such increasingly abstract vis a vis growing reality of the EU, thing like country. They don’t want their country (back) - they want a safe neighbourhood. Anywhere.
Oh there was outcry after the murder, flurry of angry letters to the editors, anti-moslem slogans scribbled on walls, a few small mosques were fire bombed - even demonstrations!
But these demonstrations were pitifully small compared to the enormous crowds protesting the US war in Iraq. The majority of the Europeans believe that the real, or prime scoundrel is America (and Israel). They also believe that if not for these two Islam would have been much, much nicer.
But why Dutch? 200 completely innocent Spaniards who had nothing to do with criticism of Islam were murdered in Madrid. There was grief, flowers, candles and tears. And then Spaniards, after replacing their government with one more acceptable to Moslems, returned to their siestas. Now, a little over half a year later Spaniards are celebrating the completion of Granada mosque - first one since the triumph of the reconquista. And they promise there will be more of them. Spanish elites want Spaniards to be aware of Spain’s Moslem heritage and want Moslems be aware of Spaniards being aware. They believe there is security in Dhimmitude. And of course, there is - as long as jizya is paid.
And Europe is paying her jizya on time - and in excess. Billions of euro are paid to invaders. Housing, social security, free medical assistance, maternity wards, Koran schools, mosques…And, of course, education, or re-education of the natives, so they understand that what is happening is both deserved, natural and to their advantage. But above all – unavoidable. Multiculti - a law of nature.
I mentioned Holland and Spain, but the situation is the same in all Western Europe. Our political parties may differ on, what they want us to believe are, essential issues, but none of them says the only truth that matters: “this is our country, always has been, and always must be. She is ours because we are hers. Either by birth or adoption. And in the matters of adoption it is our dead that shall decide”.
But our politicians don’t speak for our dead. What they do is haggling on jizya.
What you are saying is essentially packed in this one line of your letter:
“Still, people backed up against a wall usually do fight”.
Usually. But only if there is a wall. Love of family, people and country are three solid walls. But when country and people become abstractions then the only wall left is family. And family one takes with when one immigrates to New Zealand, Australia and Canada. Or moves to a safer neighbourhood.
There is also another thing implied in your letter, which, kind of, “rubs” me (is this the right word?). Maybe I will try to write about it later. I need to think over it before I do so.
T. Hanski,
You may well be correct in your assesment of Europe's future. I am not optimistic either. History may well have certain inevitabilities. They certainly seem to when looking backwards.
I am hoping that Europeans will eventually wake up, and not merely to escape to other lands.
T. Hanski,
You make very persuavive points on Western Europe. How do you see the newly freed former Eastern bloc countries in this situation. Will they resist the multiculti cultural nihilism, or as their economies improve will the doors be open for muslim hordes there as well? It seems as an American that these countries, particularly Poland, are natural cultural allies of the US. Their are geographic challenges, but culturally I see some interesting potential between the US and these countries.
Some Eastern/Central European countries have both a longer history of 'interaction' with Islam (i.e. resisting invasion: Wein, 1529, 1683, etc.) and have not imbibed the spring of PC multiculti. Once I would have argued that they were not likely to resist, due to E.U. standards being imposed upon them as they join.
However, with the recent CIA analysis that the E.U. is unlikely to last very many years due to demographics overwhelming their welfare states, it is possible that the former Warsaw Pact states can remain more free.
Phil Gilbert,
You are asking a question a Pole by birth, like myself, living in the Western Europe for 36 years and who has been witnessing with incredulity the triumphant advance of the Left in its war against Christianity, history, nationhood and tradition must ask himself.
Will this one day be the fate of Poland?
Some 15 years ago before, or just after, wall’s fall I said say that the development is impossible in Poland. I still think so but perhaps not so emphatically. An average Pole was deeply patriotic, unabashedly catholic and naturally anti-communist. The decades of Communist oppression only augmented these features, especially his anti-communism. When Communism collapsed many Poles rightly accused the west European Left for its pro-Soviet sympathies and obstructing Reagan’s crusade against the evil Empire. In these years for a Pole anything perceived (justly or not) as leftist was equated with the hated communism. Pinko was a commie. Period
I reasoned therefore that since multiculturalism, liberalism, anti-Christianity originated and were promoted by the Left the Poles in their loathing of Communism will continue rejecting them at least for a some years. I think that was very true then. Perhaps not so much anymore.
The other factor I listed has been Poland’s staunch Catholicism. I am not suggesting that Catholic translates automatically into aggressive intolerance of other religions. It only means that Poles want to remain catholic. They, indeed, like being Catholic and are quite unapologetic about their Catholicism.
Poles are also absolutely comfortable about their history and as yet haven’t discovered the perverse pleasures of guilt seeking, finding and pardon begging. Poland is Europe, but has no colonialist past. Therefore the leftist mantra of Western exploitation and subjugation of third world people can’t evoke the feeling of guilt for past sins
which is so essential for spreading the multiculti gospel. Poles don’t feel it is necessary to muffle their religious, or national delight for fear of offending sensitivity of other religions. They think that a settler who feels offended by the religion of their host should either choose other host or shut up lest he offends the host. Quite elementary…
While West Europeans are increasingly apologetic about their history and culture the Poles stress their belonging to the West and proud of the Western civilization. Western “intelligencia” discredits their civilization and its great Judeo-Christian tradition glorifying and idealizing just about everybody else. But Poles happily celebrate it.
Recently Poland’s president A. Kwasniewski criticized the proposed EU constitution for leaving out reference to the Judeo Christian roots of Europe. It is worth noting that Kwasniewski is himself an atheist!
Now one may point out that, just a few years ago, Italy, Spain and Ireland were not less catholic than Poland but they now are steadily heading into Moslem future. It is true - at least as far as Italy and Spain goes. I don’t know much about Ireland, but I suspect it may be very much the same. But these countries experience an unprecedented in their history growth and wealth. This growth has been and is made possible by huge subsidies from core EU countries France, Germany, Belgium and Holland. Of course such gift carries a price tag including surrendering national policy of borders so it fits the vision of Brussels. And Brussels needs to show she is a better friend of Islam than the US if she wants to compete with the US in global politics, economy and, especially, in righteousness. That’s why it’s Brussels who dictates immigration policies of Rome, Madrid, Copenhagen, Stockholm and invites Turkey – a non Christian non-European country to become its most populous member.
It is doubtful that Italy and Spain who have been gorging themselves on newly achieved prosperity dare to disobey Brussels - prosperity is addictive and they crave more and more of it. With legalization of abortion they definitely chose to rather have more things than more future. Also, and this is quite important to remember, in stark contrast to Poland, both Italy and Spain have history of colonialism which nourishes their local industries of historical guilt. As nation, tradition and Christianity means increasingly less to them they don’t mind too much surrendering it to the Moslem settlers as compensation for the past “wrongdoings”.
Into that post-Christian, post-national, hedonistic and morally confused part of Europe Islam moves with great ease.
Now if my identification of the dynamics necessary for Islam to establish itself here are correct then, I think, Poland will remain free from Moslem invaders for some time yet.
Poland is too nationalist, too Christian and it doesn’t think it owes Moslems anything. Also, it needs to attain a certain economical level before it becomes a target of massive immigration.
Another thing is that there is a definite correlation between Christian ideas and welfare, or if you will, between Islam and stagnation, corruption, nepotism and poverty. In very competitive global market increasingly Moslem Europe will have hard to compete if the Moslems are not welll integrated into the host society. Enormous quotas are being spent for this purpose and, until now, completely without results. Therefore, less capital is diverted to assist the newly arrived members to reach the material level of remaining EU countries. In fact the EU as we know it may go bankrupt long before the Eastern Europe and the Baltic republics might start noticing Moslems amidst their people.
Phil Gilbert wonders if Poland, or East Europe, and the US are “natural cultural allies”.
If by this P. Gilbert means allies in the cultural war I quite agree with him. In Poland and, I am quite sure, other E. European countries America enjoys tremendous credit. Memory of Reagan’s America liberating E. Europe from the communist yoke are still vivid and cherished. Even America’s bombing of Serbia couldn’t change these feelings - although it confused, surprised and disappointed quite a few of us. But many things changed about America since Reagan. The Idiocy of Political Correctness proceeds from victory to victory and reigns supreme in your media, campus and academia. A most vicious campaign slandering Christianity, West and, indeed, America herself is lead by your own intellectual luminaries. All that confuses many of your best wishers among us who sometimes have difficulty recognizing you.
Might we dare to hope that the brave Poles will rescue Europe once again?
It is interesting that the Ottoman siege of Vienna failed in part due to a lack of heavy artillery, since that same problem contributed to the failure to take Vienna in 1529.
Mr. Cella,
As a Pole I thank you for the compliment implied in your tentative question.
But, I think, as long as Europe’s ”love of comfort and leisure exceeds her love of life or her love of truth”, as you put it so well, no one can rescue her. On the other hand if she does wake up from her spell she will be rescued by this very act and won’t need a new Sobieski to rush to her rescue.
And, gentlemen, please excuse the teribly messy posting before this one. For some reason my word processor didn't save the corrected version. When I discovered the mistake it was already too late.
T. Hanksi:
Fascinating information and perspective. Look forward to reading more about it. It is difficult for us across the Atlantic to get a good feel for how things are on the ground in Europe. Most of our media filters information with a leftist filter - that is, it favors reporting that which supports the leftist view of things.
Indeed. My thanks as well. I would add that much of the remaining media reporting that is not filtered through Leftism, is filtered through anti-European neoconservatism, which is preferable to the former, but hardly ideal.
Commenting by HaloScan
