.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Visit Freedom's Zone Donate To Project Valour

Saturday, April 26, 2008

A Rather Remarkable Blogging Event

Shrinkwrapped notes discussions of genocide and/or mass expulsion to deal with Muslims in Europe. Check out the comments.

SW is discussing a post at Gates of Vienna that began with this statement of the European dilemma:
...Islam constituted an existential threat to the survival of European civilization, and that Islam’s influence on Europe therefore needed to be eliminated. It further concluded that, logically speaking, the various ways of achieving this goal could be broadly subdivided into three categories:

1)
inducing Muslims to leave of their own free will,
2)
mass deportations, and
3)
genocide.
It's quite amazing that people don't see that considering genocide a solution to the problem is more of an existential threat to European civilization. SW is strongly attacked in the comments for pointing out that this is quite irrational, but of course it is.

I have sympathy for the individuals who find themselves living in or amid the extremist Muslim areas of Europe. They are facing a real problem, and the government doesn't want to address it or even admit that this problem exists. See, for example, the controversy in the UK over one bishop's remarks:
MUSLIMS were accused of being "in denial" by the senior Christian bishop accused of inflaming anti-Islamic feeling by declaring extremists have made parts of Britain "no go areas" for non-Muslims.

Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir Ali, defended himself against a barrage of criticism at an inter-faith meeting at Ilford Islamic Centre on Friday.
The bishop responded to his critics and elicited some agreement:
"Christian clergy have been prevented from distributing literature in people's homes, Christian workers have been attacked or intimidated.

"I think the Muslim community and wider community both, need to attend to this situation and address it, rather than being in denial."

Centre spokesman Mohammed Azam said an "unfortunate understanding of Islam" had sprouted because some mosques were teaching Arabic "by rote" and without a true understanding of the Koran. He added: "There is extremism and we'd be foolish not to recognise that."
So the bishop made some headway. The idea that all Muslims support the type of thing that the bishop is discussing is as wrong as the idea that all American blacks agree with Rev. Wright's comments.

Simply enforcing the laws that exist will be enough to sort out the wild-eyed Muslim radicals from the rest of the population. When women are being raped in Sweden and free-speech rights are being violated in the UK, the solution is clear - enforce the laws of European civilization. Doing that will be enough to defend the civilization. Is simply enforcing laws that demand respecting other people's rights so unthinkable?

Obviously some of the commenters on SW's post don't have any confidence that their government will do that, but most ignore his point entirely, and some introduce even stranger tangents:
You forget the basic problem Europe faces : it has no natural resources. It cannot sustain itself. And the rest of the world is getting richer all the time, which means it's getting harder for europeans to justify their keep. In fact, unless things change fast, any reasonable prediction of energy production has to acknowledge that Europe's ability to sustain itself will fail within years. Everyone in Europe can see it is starting to sputter, and today we see the mere tip of the iceberg.

Therefore genocide is upon Europe, for there are too many people for the infrastructure, and we're not building infrastructure. In fact we're actually *destroying* badly needed infrastructure (thank you al gore). And if there's one lesson to be learned from history : it will not happen quietly. Never has, never will. If people don't do it, nature, yes reality itself, will do it, or at the very least make our lives a living hell. And people have never let nature take it's course in the history of Europe.

Besides : as you say, you can't stop this evolution. It has clearly affected both the green fringe and the extreme left fringe, it will not stop there. And neither can I stop it. So what's there to do except prepare (AND obviously, to hope for a miracle, but acknowledge that a miracle is necessary) ?
Overpopulation is not Europe's problem. If Europe is worried about energy, Europe has the ability to build nuclear power plants, etc.

Europe's problem is that the progressive culture there has made defending yourself and your property more of a crime than it is to steal, rape or beat up a person on the street. So naturally the most thuggish groups among the population prevail, which is why the most violent extremists among the Islamic population are prevailing.

This is what the failure to enforce laws brings. Thuggishness and a belief in the viability of mass murder.

Comments:
Mass murder is quite viable based on the historical record,and thugs have prevailed in many nations at various times.The founders of our nation recognized this,which is why we used to have the Bill of Rights and the Rule of Law.Western Civilization requires an informed and armed populace that takes responsibility and demands respect for basic Human Rights...OH SHIT!
 
The "fundamental" problem we face in the UK is that we have a significant minority living here who do not share our values, often do not wish to speak our language, and believe that their religious beliefs and values set them apart from what is a christian country. I use christian with a small c because for the past 100 years our christianity is a passive faith.

However, our way of life is being changed to take into account the religious views of the minority and last Christmas, many schools were not allowed to celebrate the christmas story in order to avoid causing offence to the minority community.

Were I to pitch up at the airport in Pakistan and announce that I wanted to live there, with financial support from the state, but I did not wish to follow their laws and did not wish to speak their language, I suspect my stay at the airport would be very short!

We also suffer from the EC inspired Human Rights laws which have usurped our Parliaments role of law maker, and hardly a week goes by without a Judge striking out laws passed by Parliament because of "Human Rights" This includes the right to detain suspected terrorists and most recently, the right to freeze bank accounts of those suspected of terriorist activity.

Regretfully, for the last few years in the UK, the lunatics are in charge of the asylum!
 
This is a growing concern and I really worry about Germany and many of the European countries involved with this issue.

Germany being my mother country, is of course a great concern to me because of its history. I get the feeling that they are truly between a rock and a hard place. It is a real problem! When I speak with people in Munich, for example, it is as though they see the problem but are not willing to face up to what the real implications are.
 
Covey - but the solution is NOT TO CATER TO THEM.

You don't have to feed this, tolerate this, or change your ways. Nor do we.

In fact it is sacrificing your way of life to change your laws to accommodate their ways. But right now it is self-inflicted damage.
 
I agree, but here to make any comment on immigration, Muslims, Islam, is to be branded as a racist and our political classes in an effort to attract votes from the minority community have brought in laws covering "racially aggravated" crimes. If I were to strike a white man it is assult, if I were to strike a person from a minority community, it becomes a racially aggravated assult with a greater penalty.

The race relations industry in the UK is very lucrative for those involved, because nobody wants to stick their head over the parapit and take on the vested interests. Our politicians will not take on the lobby because it will cost them votes, and in many local voting districts, especially in London, the white British born population are an ethnic minority.

A recent attempt by the white British born ethnic minority to use the Race Relations Act was rebuffed by the authorities on the grounds that it was only intended for "immigrant" minorities.
 
When the safety valve is held down, a boiler explosion generally follows.

Too many elites, bothered by the hissing sound of a properly functioning valve, tie it down, reasoning that since the boiler has never exploded before, it never will....
 
Wow ... another "just enforce the law" post.

"Just enforce the law" is supposedly different from "start a war".

So what happens when a European police force attempts to "just enforce the law" ? Well :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France

* Started: 17:20 on Thursday, 27 October 2005 in Clichy-sous-Bois.
* Towns affected: 274 (on 7 November[20])
* Property damage: 8,973 vehicles (Not including buildings).
* Monetary damage: Estimated at €200 Million.
* Arrests: 2,888
* Deaths: 1 (Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec)
* Police and firefighters injured: 126

It only remained at this level because the police backed off, and did not prosecute, or even attempt to punish the arrestees.

Taking law to the banlieues (who are by no means limited to France), IS THE SAME AS STARTING A WAR. The police has shown itself incapable of doing it, so it will have to be done by the army, or not done at all.

Needless to say, not doing it at all will have even more disastrous consequences than doing it militarily.

Unfortunately that reduces MoM's statement from "removing muslims would start a war", to "we need to start a war".

I like to think like this : any tactic that would not work on animals will not work on humans. Because people used to understand that, enforcing the law is done, in any society, by saying "follow these rules, or get shot". Now this obviously makes the difference between "enforce the law" and "start a genocide" a hopeful difference in scale. It's not a fundamentally different operation, and both could turn out very ugly things indeed. Any attempt to enforce the law will KILL a bunch of muslims and a bunch of leftists, and a large majority of the dead will come from these 2 groups (because, quite simple, criminals have every incentive to be lefties, and muslims tend to be criminals).

So obviously it's racist too. Enforcing the law is not just racist, but genocidally racist.

Let's keep in mind that MoM's "enforce the law" basically means that all muslims need to drop the quran, and accept the state, the infidels of the democracy, as a higher authority than allah. That's the fight you have on your hands with the "enforce the law" statement. You fight to prove the (obvious) inferiority of allah in the minds of muslims. You prove his impotence against a supposedly inferior group of people.

This is the exact same thing as fighting to eradicate islam, what El Ingles proposes.

Btw, since the quran clearly qualifies as hate speech, basically any European law outlaws the quran. Why don't we enforce that part of the law too ?
 
The US has been more successful at assimilating Muslim immigrants than Europe. What are the reasons for that, and can they be used by European countries?

Or is assimilation not considered a goal? If not, why not?
 
tomcpp - that's bogus. Enforcing laws when you haven't enforced them is difficult, but not impossible. You start like they did in NYC.

You start from the outside and work in. And one key is stopping the juvenile gangbangers, and the easiest way to do that is to deprive their families of social benefits if the kids keep getting picked up.

I noticed when Sarkozy was elected that the rioters seemed to be white....
 
"The US has been more successful at assimilating Muslim immigrants than Europe. What are the reasons for that, and can they be used by European countries?"

The US has been successful, perhaps partially because it is more open economically -- allowing/encouraging immigrants to join the mainstream.

I say "partially" because I expect that the primary reason that the US has been more successful with Muslims so far is because we have a far smaller percentage of them (compared to our population) than, say, England or France. However, Muslims in the US have far more children than typical Americans, and continue to immigrate here in substantial numbers.

Our time will come.
 
Or is assimilation not considered a goal? If not, why not?

Ask the lefties in charge. It's not a goal.

and the easiest way to do that is to deprive their families of social benefits if the kids keep getting picked up.

That's not possible. That goes against their human rights for starters. And nobody, not even extreme right parties will accept that. The only ones that *might* go for this (with qualifications) are the Christian parties, and I doubt them a LOT. Also, they will most certainly not propose this.

Also the unions will not let you pass this law without a war. (neither will the democrats in america)

"The US has been more successful at assimilating Muslim immigrants than Europe. What are the reasons for that, and can they be used by European countries?"

That's because the US is assimilating 0.1% of the muslims the EU is assimilating. They do get their ghettos operational (for now).

In the US it's a tiny trickle. In the EU it's an inundation.
 
Simply enforcing the laws that exist will be enough to sort out the wild-eyed Muslim radicals from the rest of the population.

While I'm a bit surprised, I am nevertheless glad to see that MaxedOutMama now advocates outlawing Islam. Obviously, enforcing the laws is tantamount to outlawing Islam, since the problems caused by the so-called "wild-eyed Muslim radicals" stem from their practice of essential parts of their religion.

I never would have thought that MaxedOutMama would jump off the fifth-columnist bandwagon and start making sense. Apparently I was wrong.
 
Tomcpp, not paying benefits to families who are raising juvenile delinquents is surely less of a violation of human rights than killing all the Muslims, putting them in concentration camps or deporting them. Deportation is the least possible alternative btw, because quite a few are citizens of the countries in which they were born.

The argument for such extreme measures rests solely on the idea that all more moderate solutions aren't possible.

For what it is worth, we do have limited welfare benefits in the US in many areas. We also expel families with one criminal member from public housing, etc.

I repeat, Europeans will not enforce the law and then they want to go directly to lunatic wholesale attacks. This is deranged.
 
The US has a lot of practice at assimilating a variety of people because we are not a culturally/ethnically homogeneous country. We do have a lot of problems because of that but is a strength as well.

We do have issues between the existing population and immigrants from Latin America but as far as I know no one is deranged enough to suggest anything further than deportation and huge fences, and even those are for illegal immigrants.
 
MoM,

Please run a post on the ATA Truck Tonnage Index in March - TIA!
 
They could start with insisting that immigrant children attend the same schools. I have Dutch friend who talked about the "black" schools that the Muslims attend. They need to be teaching the immigrants the history of the country they've chosen to live in and enforce the laws of that country. As long as multi-culturalism is in play, they will continue to cave. More worrisome for the US is that Canada has the same problem. It's insane to allow sharia law to co-exist in the Western world.
 
The argument for such extreme measures rests solely on the idea that all more moderate solutions aren't possible.

I'm not excusing extreme measures. I'm saying that enforcing the law, the way Americans do it in Chicago, is the same as starting a war.

And if you start a war, and you know who the victims will be if you win, how exactly does that differ from starting a genocide ?
 
**Enforcing the law is the same as starting a war**

No, it is not. Not if the laws apply to everyone.

Let's define genocide. Genocide is the killing of a people or ethnic group. It is done on the basis of identity and not an individual's deeds.

Enforcing laws is done on the basis of individual deeds. People are not criminals because of their ethnicity, religion, culture, etc. People are criminals because they believe that they have the right to ignore the rights of other peoples and because they do so in fact.

We had a very severe racial problem in the US. We had riots. We had genuine discrimination, and a terrible history of deep and long-standing wrongs, and accompanying bitterness. We did not end up starting a war to fix our problems.

The difference between enforcing laws and making identity criminal is a very deep and real difference. If you do not understand that difference, you are an amoral individual living by some tribal code of your own.

If Europe adopts the idea that Muslims are subhuman because they are Muslims, it will not be Europe - it will have no culture worth defending.

I have known quite a few Muslims, and several quite religious Muslims. They are by no means all or even primarily raving maniacs seeking to kill all who disagree with them.

The very aggessive, radical and murderous sects are a product of only several subsegments of Muslim teaching and culture. Some of the most radical groups of all are centered in Europe, but if this is the type of thinking and attitude Muslims are encountering in Europe, then I suppose we should not be surprised.
 
In the UK, a feminist play based on a true event, the rape of a Sikh woman at a Sikh temple by a Sikh man aroused anger within the "Sikh community. The play was writen by a Sikh woman. The "Sikh community" began to riot and prevent the play from being performed. The Chief Constable requested that the theatre cease performing the play, because he could not prevent a breakdown in public order. The "Sikh community" therefore, by actual and not merely threatened violence, successfully abolished the right of freedom of expression in the UK. The alleged right to freedom of speach is now subject to the approval of violent "minority communities". Hayek said that freedom is seldom surrendered suddenly, but is gradually eroded. The coal -miner's strike of the early 1980's was very polarised, but Margaret Thatcher authorised thousands of police to uphold the "rule of law" at the picket lines. The only reason that the "Sikh community" was successful in its use of violence and intimidation to remove a traditional British right, is that the British leadership has lost the will to defend liberty in the UK. The refusal of the UK government to allow publication of the Danish cartoons was a similar example of appeasement. The existing race relations act renders illegal, any material likely to incite racial hatred. On this basis, the q'ran should be evaluated and its possession or publication be evaluated in the same manner as any other written work.
 
"I repeat, Europeans will not enforce the law and then they want to go directly to lunatic wholesale attacks. This is deranged."

This is precisely why I am so worried. This "derangement" can turn very quickly into evil again.

This has turned into quite a discussion...and it needs to be discussed!
 
Hi M-O-M:

"Enforcing laws is done on the basis of individual deeds. People are not criminals because of their ethnicity, religion, culture, etc. People are criminals because they believe that they have the right to ignore the rights of other peoples and because they do so in fact."

I hate to do this to you, but here's where your argument falls flat on its' face.

The Holocaust was legal.
Contrary to what you assert, the Nuremberg Laws made it effectively a crime to be a Jew.
And the notions of their rights was sidestepped by the mechanism of declaring the Jews and other target populations to be sub-human.

Therefore, everything that followed...what we build museums and memorials to, was essentially an example of a government "enforcing the law".

Here's a wee little hint: if you don't want to sponsor a genocide, then don't clamor for the government to "do something" about the problem FIRST.

The essential weapon of genocide IS government.
 
"The very aggessive, radical and murderous sects are a product of only several subsegments of Muslim teaching and culture."

Well, yes, but please remember that the Nazis, at first (and if you don't like that example, substitute Russian Marxists circa 1917) were also a VERY small subsegment of the German (or Russian) population.

What needed to be done in both those cases - and was not - was for a decisive majority of the overall population to refute and control those who were intent on imposing their privileged and violent views.

Likewise, the larger Muslim community has had many years - let's charitably only count since 9/11 and say almost 7 years - to reign in these supposed hotheads that want to impose Sharia (in the UK, France, etc).

That there is NO serious *substantial* movement to do so speaks volumes. Although individual Muslims may enjoy Western freedoms, the traditionalist reading of the Koran still holds sway.

And that says, deceive, then dominate, then destroy the unbelievers.

Thinking that individual, scattered, few freedom-enjoying will substantially effect the prevailing direction of Islam is wishful thinking.

Note that I am NOT advocating Western theocide against Muslims (far from it).

What I am saying is that time for measures that can prevent a war between the mostly secularized West and religiously-motivated Muslims is continuing to lapse.

We (speaking broadly of the West) should be preventing immigration, encouraging out-immigration, and generally *peacefully* adopting what measures we can to reduce the size of the base community of those who wish us death or conversion.

However, no measures like this are happening due to our prevailing liberal dogmas, and so I fear that wars of theocide are in the future. Our lack of any serious measures to prevent them will someday be wondered at (by whichever side prevails), just as we wonder at the foolishness of Chamberlain and the inability of Jews to avoid what was ahead, seeing the increasing punishments that the Nazis visited on them over a substantial period.

We are warned, just as were the Jews in the thirties. Like them, we engage in wishful thinking and avoidance.
 
Bilgeman, Nazis won a plurality but never won control of the German government. However prior to that point, the Nazi movement had effectively gained control over a great deal of the police. They also had the SA which was capable of smashing down the unions, etc. That allowed the Nazis to seize control of government, effectively abolish their Parliament, etc.

Thus a gang of criminals and thugs seized control of government.

But the European countries of today are not controlled by criminals. So the two situations are not comparable, YET.

But look at Anon's 11:17's comment: "The "Sikh community" began to riot and prevent the play from being performed. The Chief Constable requested that the theatre cease performing the play, because he could not prevent a breakdown in public order. The "Sikh community" therefore, by actual and not merely threatened violence, successfully abolished the right of freedom of expression in the UK. The alleged right to freedom of speach is now subject to the approval of violent "minority communities"."

There's more, and I recommend reading the comment. The UK government will not let its citizens defend themselves; they have effectively made it criminal to fight back. Then they fade into the above type of thing. Obviously it is the government which is creating the problem. The angriest and least tolerant groups will win the day on the streets and in the public square. This rewards criminality in the broadest sense.

Contrast this to Australia, in which public order is being defended on the beaches, streets and in Parliament. If gangs of Muslims roam the beaches and rape women, groups of native Aussies turn out and end the matter.

I am eliding a great deal, because of time pressures. But western governments are not legitimate because they are governments - they are legitimate because they are constitutional, representatively elected and defend the rights of the individuals in their populations.

Thus the advent of treating populations differently under the law is destroying these European countries from within. The origin of the problem lies not in the Muslims but in the governments' attitudes toward individuals and the law.

Also, supposing that you, Bilgeman, possessed a magic device with a button you could push that would magically zap every single Muslim out of Europe. Would that stop the progression of events? I think it would not. You would have further splinter groups arise within the population. You'd have the young punks mugging people on the streets today with near impunity develop into larger groups.

The UK government either reverts to a situation in which laws that protect individuals are enforced, and in which individuals have the right to defend themselves, or it faces a violent and regressive future.

Nor is it just the UK. The same problems hold in France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc....
 
originalfrank, I fear that you have spoken correctly. I fear this kind of war as well. It is naive for anyone to think that this will go away. It will not. What happened in the 30's, was at first not at all recognized and it slowly crept into the entire society. After a while, the signs were so recognizable but it was too late.
 
I am eliding a great deal, because of time pressures. But western governments are not legitimate because they are governments - they are legitimate because they are constitutional, representatively elected and defend the rights of the individuals in their populations.

While I must admit that they do do this in some measure, but 99% of the rights of individuals comes from the individuals themselves. From society around them.

In other words it comes, not from the government, but from the implicit and utterly complete compliance with Jesus' creed "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you".

In other words, freedom comes from the remains of Christianity in Europe.

The same laws are valid amongst muslims, and they're not AT ALL bringing freedom - rather the opposite.

Furthermore there are 2 problematic groups in Europe, and the muslims are still the smaller of the two. The real problem, for the moment, is coming from leftist atheists (and there are very little rightist atheists, or they're not identifying that way because they're conservative).

The pressure to conform is, both in the US and in Europe, much greater among lefties (check the reaction to Obama's interview on Fox News if you doubt this) than in a mosque (any muslim surely has the freedom to go talk to Bush, even if (s)he does not want to kill him). Islam, a huge disaster with genocides and worse, is hugely preferable to leftist parties.

Freedom, as we know it, is something that can only exist amonst Christians.
 
M-O-M:

"Thus a gang of criminals and thugs seized control of government."

And the US, as well as the rest of Europe, recognized these thugs as the lawful Government of Germany.

You can't retroactively de-legimitize the Nazi goverment, no matter how comforting that might be. They were STILL a government.

"But the European countries of today are not controlled by criminals."

If criminals control their own government, they are then, by definition, not "criminals" at all.
They are then "lawful authorities".


"So the two situations are not comparable, YET."

Be careful...your mind is open a crack to the possibility of realizing some very dark things out there beyond the door.

"Also, supposing that you, Bilgeman, possessed a magic device with a button you could push that would magically zap every single Muslim out of Europe. Would that stop the progression of events? "

No it would not. It would only delay it.

My "magic button" is quite mundane, and I've described it on GoV and LGF:

In sum:

Do your own shit-work. Don't contract it out.

If there's no need for shit-workers, then there's no economic support for them to immigrate...or to stay.

" Obviously it is the government which is creating the problem."

No...it is WE who are creating the problem. Government is only enabling us by mandating license for the economic drug to which we are addicted.

" But western governments are not legitimate because they are governments - they are legitimate because they are constitutional, representatively elected and defend the rights of the individuals in their populations."

Nonsense.

To quote Orwell:

"If I think I float, and YOU think I float, then it happens."

A government, any government, all too often is a loaded .357 magnum in the hands of a six year old.

There's good reasons to have a loaded revolver, and good reasons to have a six-year-old, but it's waaaay better to keep the two as far away from each other as possible.
 
Tomcpp - what you are describing arose in western thought as a result of Communism, which assigned value not to individuals but to classes, believed the only true truths were those that aided the cause, that truth was malleable, and that lies were necessary to gain the appropriate ends. It was this concept that undermined the Enlightenment expression of Judeo-Christian culture. The Nazi idea of citizenry determined by the individual's value to the state is merely a slight twist on the Communist idea that virtue rested on the individual of the correct class.

In other words, we have now reached a point of agreement except that I dispute that Christianity, per se, is necessary. What is necessary is to recognize and live by the Golden Rule. English Common Law slowly evolved a set of precepts which were pretty closely aligned with respect of the individual. English Common Law is one of the world's great cultural successes, which is why I find it inexpressibly painful to see it subverted at its source. English Common Law is transportable across cultures - anywhere the English controlled for very long it tended to take root and to produce successful societies.

You are correct that Islam is more consonant with the Golden Rule than Marxism.

I strongly suspect that the sudden upsurge of Islam in areas in France and the UK is as the result of the lawlessness on the streets. Imagine being a Pakistani small shopkeeper in London, and encountering a constabulary that is not responsive to your continuing problems with vandalism and theft at your shop. That is how the Muslim patrols of these areas began.

It is the same in France. The police do not control crime against property. Thus if you wish to be protected the protection will arise from some community patrol. It is the anarchy of the law which is feeding a great deal of the return to Islam.
 
Bilgeman, understand that when I write of "legitimate" governments I am writing out of my own idea of legitimacy, out of my own culture, and based on my own morality.

I do not agree with multi-culturalism. I do not agree that all governments and ideas are equally legitimate.

The German government was illegitimate, and the entire western world paid a huge price for pretending that it was.

Representative governments and the institutions which have evolved to allow throwing the current bums out of government are the only institution which curbs the inevitable evils of government itself. Government is a necessary institution but an inherently dangerous one. The rule of law curbs the power of governments. End the rule of law and any government will evolve toward repression, corruption, self-seeking among those in power and wholesale oppression of those who are not.

The western enlightenment evolved a method of peaceful and efficient revolution that produces prosperity, strength and relative peace, but the western enlightenment can only continue to do so when it is founded on the idea that the legitimacy rests in the individuals, that the government is an institution limited by certain laws itself (thus the importance of constitutions), and the idea that individuals have inherent rights which the government cannot abrogate.

It is that last principle which is dying in Europe.

I note with great worry that all three of the current US presidential candidates do not seem to abide by it either. I have written of McCain's ideas about political speech (the people should not be allowed to exercise it), Hillary's proposal to require people to buy health insurance is a complete abrogation of both reason and human freedom, and Obama's love affair with the Church of Black Jesus indicates some confusion of ideas that is worrisome to say the least. (Liberation theology of the Wright kind starts from the principle that Black is good, that God is good because he is for black people, and so forth. Thus it is a Marxist-like construction that assigns value by group identity and not by deed).
 
Muslims do not reject genocide as a tenet of their faith. Muslims are adamant that other cultures subsume to their beliefs. I find genocide to be an acceptable technique for use against Muslims as a sign of respect for their views.
 
Rob - actually, Muslims do. If you submit, that's it - you are brought under the law.

Some of the issues raised in posts here are taken up by Dr. Sanity's post today. She ends
As for the creeping leftism that supports, encourages and enables this slow destruction of our values and freedoms in the name of 'multiculturalism' and 'peace' and all things politically correct--you people already have a lot to answer for; and sometime soon, you will either have to come to terms with the fear and hate that motivates your appeasement; or you will finally have to admit that the submission and selflessness offered by Islam is the religion you have been searching for all along.
 
Rob - actually, Muslims do [reject genocide as a tenet of their faith].

Actually, Islam commands its followers to kill non-Muslims (which means the majority of humanity!) if they don't submit or subordinate to Islam.

This means that to accept, tolerate or make excuses for Islam means being involved in laying the foundations for a potential genocide.
 
Yes, the Muslim faith exhorts genocide. I was merely applying the golden rule in reverse and treating them as they would treat us. As a bonus, we are doing them and their wives and children a favor by ensuring their entrance to heaven.
 
This debate is being conducted without anyone suggesting that it should be possible for the people of the western democracies to evaluate for themselves the degree to which islam demands, encourages, permits or prohibits deceit and violence to non-believers. All that I know of islam is derived from secondary sources. I have read alleged quotations from the q'ran, which, if genuine translations, seem to suggest that islam and the christian west cannot co-exist forever. If these translations are correct, then the Jihadists canot be described as extremists who have perverted their religion, as I believe the catholic church and various protestant churches have done, in the pursuit of secular objectives. Rather, they are merely people who follow islam, literally. A proper analysis of the q'ran should be conducted. Then it should be publicised widely and frequently. If it is indeed the religion of peace, then there is no problem. If it is not, then calling it so can never make it so. Then it should be evaluated with regards existing legislation concerning incitment to violence or incitement of racial hatred. (Perhaps even incitement to the curtailment of womens' rights. I think that the silence of the feminists about life for women in islamic countries is deafening.) Immigration is usually a more significant electoral issue during less prosperous economic times. However, the issue will become more important electorally as indiginous people resent the erosion of their traditional freedoms. This is exacerbated by the ever increasing demands of minorities, who have hitherto encountered no real opposition from the mainstream and unconditional positive support from the left. It is my belief, that the arrogance of the younger and therefore less patient of the islamicists will generate a backlash, which the government will only be able to defuse, by taking those minimum measures required to satisfy the majority of the populace. The depressing and defeatist suggestions about genocide are, I think, premature. The ruling elite of britain have held power for many gnerations precisely because they knew when circumstances required concessions to the will of the normally silent majority. I do not believe that this problem will be treated in a different manner to any previous one. The ruling elite are jealous of their own power, even those of the left. They are probably as little inclined to life in a Caliphate, as any libertarian / christian / jew.
 
"Multicultural Diversity (TM)" is inherently unstable. It lasts only until the most dynamic culture in the mix absorbs the others ("AMERICA! WHISKY! SEXY!") or the most aggressive culture destroys the others ("AL'LAH'U AKBAR!").

I think Europe is going to pretend nothing's wrong (while they deconstruct Camus in their intellectual salons) until it becomes "Them or Us". When things deteriorate to where a "Final Solution (TM)" of one or the other is the only choice remaining (i.e. who sends whom up the chimneys), Euro-Fascism springs back in its most virulent form and goes head-to-head with Euro-Islam in its most virulent form.

To The Death. Osama bin Laden or Vlad Tepes Drakyula. Them or Us.
 
MOM:

"Bilgeman, understand that when I write of "legitimate" governments I am writing out of my own idea of legitimacy, out of my own culture, and based on my own morality"

Of course you do. We all do. But what exactly does that MEAN?

To me it indicates that the legitimacy of government is a purely subjective perception.

I don't feel the same about government's legitimacy on April 15th as I do on other days...

So, objectively, government simply is what it is. It does what it does. During WW2, pretty much everybody thought it was a swell idea to intern the Nisei in the "garden spots" of our outback.
Today, we recognize it for the gross injustice that it was,(helped along to that realization by the gallant sacrifice of Nisei volunteers in the combat zones of Europe and Asia).

Funny how that works, huh?

"The German government was illegitimate, and the entire western world paid a huge price for pretending that it was."

If it was illegitimate, then on what basis do you support that charge?

Thatit passed horrendous laws and did abominamle things in enforcing that law is not to be denied.

But what government hasn't, in one form or another, done much the same...and worse?

That's why I try not to look for solutions, of any kind, from any government if at all avoidable.
Because as you say, it is inherently dangerous.

"Representative governments and the institutions which have evolved to allow throwing the current bums out of government are the only institution which curbs the inevitable evils of government itself."

Hmmmm, I would observe that democracy was born in the No Man's Land between two phalanxes of armed hoplites...and nowhere else.

That's why we have elections, to determine who has the "bigger army".

So really, the only thing that guarantees that government keeps to it's boundaries,(more or less), are groups of individual armed hoplites...The Constitution calls them "The Militia". It was not created by the Founders, but recognized, and it's the biggest army of all.

The institutions that evolved from the government may alter it's character, but they do not change it's essential function...which is to control your life to one degree or another.

Whatever legitimacy you may find in that is, I'll wager, mostly derived from how and to what degree it exercises its power over you.

BTW, flew over Georgia this afternoon...looks like y'all got your lakes back.
 
bilgeman: "Hmmmm, I would observe that democracy was born in the No Man's Land between two phalanxes of armed hoplites...and nowhere else.That's why we have elections, to determine who has the "bigger army". So really, the only thing that guarantees that government keeps to it's boundaries,(more or less), are groups of individual armed hoplites.."

MOM: The western enlightenment evolved a method of peaceful and efficient revolution that produces prosperity, strength and relative peace, but the western enlightenment can only continue to do so when it is founded on... ...the idea that individuals have inherent rights which the government cannot abrogate. It is that last principle which is dying in Europe.

*****

You are somewhat talking past each other.

MOM's argument is based on a Judeo-Christian foundation that recognizes the individual as related to and valued by divinity. It is no mistake or coincidence that this last principle is dying in Europe as they continue their tranformation from historic Christian culture to post-modernism/leftism.

Bilgeman is describing a real-politik/checks-and-balances/Machiavellian view (and I don't mean Machiavellian in the 'deceptive' sense but rather in the 'what political structure works' irrespective of moral considerations). The luck or genius of the United States is that our culture was founded on Judea-Christian values, and then our government was founded on the balance-of-competing forces idea that Bilgeman expounds. That means we historically have had two reinforcing strengths that have blessed us almost uniquely (the UK and most other Anglosphere countries benefited from a similar combination).

The inherent "natural" rights of man are by-and-large NOT accepted by other cultures, and certainly not by Islamic ones. There, the "natural" right of man is submission, not life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

Since Islam does not recognize (or permit) the rights that the US (and more broadly, the West) are founded upon, the West must employ the real-politik/checks-and-balances/Machiavellian tools against the threat of Islam, most particularly within the West's borders.

If not, the West will continue to slide into oblivian - Eurarabia first.
 
> You forget the basic problem Europe faces : it has no natural resources. It cannot sustain itself. And the rest of the world is getting richer all the time, which means it's getting harder for europeans to justify their keep.

Oh, this is so wrongheaded and lame it's not even funny. This isn't the bloody middle ages. Future wealth is not in industry, it's in IP and services. This requires one resource: Educated, Resourceful, Creative Human Beings. The strength of a nation, of a continent, will rise and fall with its ability to produce ideas and provide services for the rest of the world. Not on its ag resources, not on its mineral resources. The author of that missive is woefully ignorant in his grasp not only of where wealth comes from, but what it represents and how it is constructed from raw materials around us.
 
O-Frank:

"You are somewhat talking past each other."

Ain't the internets fun?

"The inherent "natural" rights of man are by-and-large NOT accepted by other cultures, and certainly not by Islamic ones."

Certainly not de jure, and all too often not de facto...if your tribe isn't big enough, or the others have more weapons.

The Poli-Sci challenge then, is to achieve a tolerable modus vivendi within the framework of a Western governmental structure evolved root and branch from a Judeo-Christian society with sizeable minorities who do not necessarily share the fundamental values...and perhaps do not want to.

I'd observe that the success of the Chinese and other Asian immigrants into western societies indicate that there is the possibility that this can be done.

And granted, there are probably just as many examples that show a very rocky road before us.

The trick appears to be inducing the alien to WANT to "join the team".

To accomplish this, then, we are very firmly in Signore Macchiavelli's bailiwick...we use "carrot and stick" techniques on the alien, as well as on the natives.

El Ingles' post over at GoV was showing what possible "stick" MIGHT await, (and by no means just at the aliens), if the "carrot" isn't inducement enough.

"Since Islam does not recognize (or permit) the rights that the US (and more broadly, the West) are founded upon,"

We can help ourselves a great deal by "selling" the Western weltanschauung "at the wellsprings", rather than trying to chase down and dose every last immigrant "bottle" that has already been distributed.

That...to my mind, is the other half of the Counter-Jihad...the "offense" part.
 
Oh, guys, if you think this conversation is a bit incoherent you ought to see how incoherent I can be in person!!

Bilgeman & Frank, I agree about the healthy cynicism on which our political mechanism is based.

What I am claiming is that a healthily cynical and somewhat competitive society that treats its citizens equally based on their actions produces a cultural sorting effect. It generates moderation and functionality.

It is also true that those who are dysfunctional in such a culture will get angrier and angrier; that is why there must be enforcement of the laws.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?