Why the Future May Not Belong to Islam
From the desk of Fjordman on Tue, 2006-11-21 22:21
Canadian writer Mark Steyn [whose mother is Flemish] thinks “The future belongs to Islam.” The main reason for this, according to him, is demography, with massive population growth in Islamic countries and low birth rates in infidel nations. He makes some assertions I agree with, such as that big government is a national security threat since “it increases your vulnerability to threats like Islamism, and makes it less likely you’ll be able to summon the will to rebuff it.”
According to Steyn, “Four years into the ‘war on terror,’ the Bush administration began promoting a new formulation: ‘the long war.’ Not a good sign. In a short war, put your money on tanks and bombs. In a long war, the better bet is will and manpower.”
Critics would claim that Mr. Steyn isn’t contributing to maintaining Western willpower by suggesting that we’ve already lost. Still, I shouldn’t be too hard on him. The Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations denounced his article as “Islamophobic, inflammatory and offensive.” If CAIR dislikes you, you know you must be doing something right.
But he makes other assertions I strongly disagree with, such as indicating that the United States should remain in Iraq to spread democracy: “What does it mean when the world’s hyperpower, responsible for 40 percent of the planet’s military spending, decides that it cannot withstand a guerrilla war with historically low casualties against a ragbag of local insurgents and imported terrorists?”
Here, Mark Steyn is wrong, which indicates that he doesn’t fully understand Islam. The entire project of “spreading democracy” was a mistake from the very beginning, because democracy cannot be exported to an Islamic country such as Iraq. It is stupidity to waste hundreds of billions of dollars on Muslims while Islamization continues apace in the West.
Steyn also does not fully understand the issue of demography. Islamic countries are parasitical. Even the massive population growth is only an advantage as long as Muslims are allowed to export it to infidel lands. Deprived of this opportunity, and of Western aid, the Islamic world would quickly sink into a quagmire of overpopulation. This is a long-term solution, to demonstrate to Muslims the failure of Islam.
According to Srdja Trifkovic, the author of Defeating Jihad, “The tangible cost of the presence of a Muslim man, woman and child to the American taxpayer is at least $100,000 each year. The cost of the general unpleasantness associated with the terrorist threat and its impact on the quality of our lives is, of course, incalculable. (…) There is a direct, empirically verifiable correlation between the percentage of Muslims in a country and the increase of terrorist violence in that country (not to mention the general decline in the quality of life and civilized discourse).”
Sooner or later, we have to deal with the implications of this fact. The best way to deal with the Islamic world is to have as little to do with it as possible. We should completely stop Muslim immigration. This could be done in indirect ways, such as banning immigration from nations known to be engaged in terrorism. All Muslim non-citizens in the West should be removed. We should also change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of “infidels” etc should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin.
We need to create an environment where the practice of Islam is made difficult. Muslim citizens should be forced to accept our secular ways or leave if they desire sharia. Much of this can be done in a non-discriminatory way, by simply refusing to allow special pleading to Muslims. Do not allow Islamic public calls to prayer as this is offensive to other faiths. Both boys and girls should take part in all sporting and social activities of the school and the community. The veil should be banned in public institutions, thus contributing to breaking the traditional subjugation of women. Companies and public buildings should not be forced to build prayer rooms for Muslims. Enact laws to eliminate the abuse of family reunification laws. Do not permit major investments by Muslims in Western media or universities.
It is conceivable that some infidel nations will copy the Benes Decrees from Czechoslovakia in 1946, when most of the so-called Sudeten Germans had shown themselves to be a dangerous fifth column. The Czech government thus expelled them from its land. As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch has demonstrated, there is a much better case for a Benes Decree for parts of Europe’s Muslim population now than there ever was for the Sudeten Germans.
Is that racism and Fascism you say? Muslims themselves in poll after poll state that their loyalty lies with the Islamic Umma, not with the country they live in. “I’m a Muslim living in Britain, I’m not British” is the sentiment. Well, if Muslims themselves state that their citizenship is not worth the paper it is printed upon, why not take their word for it?
David Selbourne, author of The Losing Battle with Islam thinks that “Islam’s swift progress is easily explained. For the West — but not China or India — is as politically and ideologically weak as the world of Islam is strong. The West is handicapped by many factors: its over-benign liberalism, the lost moral status of the Christian faith, the vacillations of its judiciaries and the incoherence of their judgments, political and military hesitations over strategy and tactics, poor intelligence (in both senses), and the complicities of the ‘Left’.”
Can the West defeat the Islamic threat? Selbourne states ten reasons why not, including the extent of political division in the non-Muslim world about what is afoot, the confusion of Leftist “progressives” about the Islamic advance, anti-Americanism and the vicarious satisfaction felt by many non-Muslims at America’s reverses, as well as the West’s dependency on the oil and material resources of Arab and Muslim countries.
According to him, Islam will not be defeated because “the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated.” Yet another indication that Islam’s advance will continue lies in “the skilful use being made of the media and of the world wide web in the service both of the ‘electronic jihad’”
I agree with him that the cultural weakness of the West is a major disadvantage, and has been one important reason behind the recent resurgence of Jihad. It was never inevitable that we allowed millions of Muslims to settle in our lands. This was the result of Multiculturalism and the weakening of our cultural identity, and in Europe with the deliberate help of Eurabians.
The impact of globalization and modern mass media is more complicated and has contradictory results. As one pundit at ex-Muslim Ali Sina’s website put it: “Rituals are important as brainwashing tools to instill discipline and loyalty. Islam’s focus on rituals remind me of the rituals in the military. (...) But what worked well for a medieval war machine is disastrous for Muslims in the modern world. The Arab war machine was supported by the blind obedience, brotherhood, courage, hatred and high birth rates inspired by Islam. (...) But these same qualities are handicaps for Muslims in the age of the microchip. Today they lead to poverty, belligerency, war and defeat.”
Islam was perfect for medieval warfare, but gradually lost out to the West, especially after the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions, which could never have taken place in Islamic lands because of their lack of freedom and their cult of authority. Ironically, history has now gone full circle. Muslims are still useless in developing anything new, but as a result of migration, modern communications, the presence of Muslims in infidel lands and Arab oil revenues, they can more readily buy or expropriate technology from others. The Iranian Revolution was aided by audio cassettes of speeches by the Ayatollah Khomeini.
In the book The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat, Roger Scruton argues that globalization “offers militant Islam the opportunity that it has lacked since the Ottoman retreat from central Europe.” It has created “a true Islamic umma, which identifies itself across borders in terms of a global form of legitimacy, and which attaches itself like a parasite to global institutions and techniques that are the by-products of Western democracy.”
The “techniques and infrastructure on which al Qaeda depends are the gifts of the new global institutions. It is Wall Street and Zurich that produced the network of international finance that enables Osama bin Laden to conceal his wealth and to deploy it anywhere in the world. It is Western enterprise with its multinational outreach that produced the technology that bin Laden has exploited so effectively against us. And it is Western science that developed the weapons of mass destruction he would dearly like to obtain. His wealth, too, would be inconceivable without the vast oil revenues brought to Saudi Arabia from the West, there to precipitate the building boom from which his father profited.”
While Scruton gives some support to the idea that the Internet and modern communications technology have strengthened Islam, there are some contradictory views worth listening to.
Theodore Dalrymple thinks that “Islam has nothing whatever to say to the modern world,” and states that “Personally, I believe that all forms of Islam are very vulnerable in the modern world to rational criticism, which is why the Islamists are so ferocious in trying to suppress such criticism. They have instinctively understood that Islam itself, while strong, is exceedingly brittle, as communism once was. They understand that, at the present time in human history, it is all or nothing. (…) Islamism is a last gasp, not a renaissance, of the religion; but, as anyone who has watched a person die will attest, last gasps can last a surprisingly long time.”
Although some of the tensions we are seeing now are caused by Western cultural weakness, part of it is also related to the impersonal forces of technological globalization. Previously, Muslims and non-Muslims could for the most part ignore each other on a daily basis. This is no longer possible, because Muslims see the Western world on TV every day. And if somebody in, say, Denmark says something “insulting” about Muhammad — which in the 19th century would have gone unnoticed in Pakistan or Egypt — thanks to email, mobile phones and satellite TV, millions of Muslims will know about it within hours. However, this can potentially be good for non-Muslims.
Contrary to what Selbourne claims, the Internet has in fact emerged as an important, perhaps crucial factor in the Western resistance, as author Bruce Bawer has noticed: “Thank God for the [Inter]Net. I tremble at the thought of all the things that have happened during the past years that I would never have known about without it. The bloggers have in some cases reported about things that the mainstream media has left out, and in other cases pointed out omissions and distortions in the media coverage. Frequently, the mass media has felt compelled by the bloggers to pay attention to stories they would otherwise have ignored. The blogosphere is a fantastic way to spread news. If an important event has been reported in just a single, insignificant local paper, one blogger somewhere will have written about it, other bloggers will have linked to him etc. so that the news story is passed on to blog readers around the world. If Europe is saved, it will be because of the Internet.”
Columnist Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post praises the blogosphere and states that: “The responsibility of protecting our nations and societies from internal disintegration has passed to the hands of individuals, often working alone, who refuse to accept the degradation of their societies and so fight with the innovative tools of liberty to protect our way of life.”
J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic tale the Lord of the Rings is a story about the little people, the Hobbits, saving the day in the end. The most powerful enemy within in Tolkien’s story is the wizard Saruman. In the West now, Saruman corresponds to a whole class of people in politics, the media and academia. The Sarumans of the West are met with resistance from thousands of little hobbits in cyberspace, and they don’t like it. Pessimists claim that this era is merely the Wild West period of the Internet, which will gradually become tamed and censored. That is possible, but even if events should turn out that way, the Internet will still have given an important contribution to the Western resistance of our time.
Selborne believes that many people are underestimating the strength of Islam. Perhaps, but some observers, including Mark Steyn and Mr. Selborne himself, may be overestimating it. They overlook the fact that Islam has many weaknesses, too. Don’t underestimate your enemy. Muslims should be credited for making clever use of our weaknesses, but this “we’re all doomed and have already lost” theme is overblown.
We should implement a policy of containment of the Islamic world. I’m not saying that containment is all that we will ever need to do, but it is the very minimum that is acceptable. Perhaps the spread of nuclear weapons technology, the darkest side of globalization, will trigger a large-scale war with the Islamic world at some point. The only way to avoid this is to take steps, including military ones, to deprive Muslims of such technology.
We should restrain their ability to hurt us physically. We can’t prevent it completely, but we should limit it as much as possible. Muslims try to wear us down through terrorism. They should be worn down through mockery and criticism. We should also make clear that for every Islamic terror attack we will increase these efforts, which Muslims fear more than our weapons. It’s the new balance of terror.
Dr Koenraad Elst, one of Flanders’ best orientalists, thinks “Islam is in decline, despite its impressive demographic and military surge” – which according to Dr Elst is merely a “last upheaval.” He acknowledges, however, that this decline can take some time (at least in terms of the individual human life span) and that it is possible that Islam will succeed in becoming the majority religion in Europe before collapsing.
Dalrymple is probably correct when he says that Islam is an “all or nothing” religion which cannot be secularized. The future may not belong to Islam, as Mark Steyn suggests. It is conceivable that Islam in some generations will cease to be a global force of any significance, but in the meantime it will be a constant source of danger to its neighbors, from Europe through India to Southeast Asia. The good news is that Islam may not be able to achieve the world dominance it desires. The bad news is that it may be able to achieve a world war. We can only cage it as much as possible and try to prevent this from happening.
751 places in France where the future has already begun...
Submitted by buccaneer on Sat, 2006-11-25 11:35.
For anyone interested, here's a link to an official French list of suburbs which are considered "sensible areas". This is, to anyone who ever had the pleasure to venture there or read some French local news a nice sounding expression for places where the French state has basically stopped to assert any form of authority and mainly Muslim gangs rule.
Would be interesting to compare it to maps depicting the Muslim neighbourhoods. I wouldn't wonder if they map 1:1.
Power to Islam
Submitted by Nansi on Tue, 2006-11-28 08:56.
ِAs usual this article as most on this website is full of inaccuracies and false information.
If you try to harass Muslims and drive them away from their basic religious rights and create a hard environment for them to practice Islam you will only get more determined people to want to follow their religion. If you only read history you will see this. Maybe because Islam does some magical power to its believers that you people do not understand, maybe because Islam is the only true faith on earth.
" Islam was perfect for medieval warfare, but gradually lost out to the West, especially after the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions"
Again you have not read the history of Islam during the Abbasy Dynasty when Baghdad at the time was the capital of the Muslim world contributed so much to science and research, of course it was all stolen and later claimed to be the work of the West.
"The main reason for this, according to him, is demography, with massive population growth in Islamic countries and low birth rates in infidel nations"
That is not the reason, the real reason behind all this is the extent which the West have taken their war against Islam which forced Muslims to wakeup. I know in your minds Muslims should accept all your greedy selfish agendas and if they resist then they are terrorists and freedom intolerants.
Points of Unity TWO
Submitted by Flanders Fields on Thu, 2006-11-23 23:16.
There are at least two major issues all of us from the US, England, France or Belgium must counter before any effort is made to resolve immigration or any other problems. The first is making our voices heard, especially when we are a majority in numbers.That will require muting the voices referred to in the first section to a level that is consistent with their numbers. This is difficult since the governing apparatus in whichever country is their support along with propoganda that their drivel is free press.
The second is becoming involved in choosing the initial candidates for elections who are the ones who eventually become the actual candidates( in the US this is done within the apparatus of the major parties and they always choose candidates suitable for the establishment regardless of the party). Undesireables are weeded out by the media or in other ways. Those whom we would choose would always be undesireable to that establishment.
It is clear that we do not have a free press in any country of which I am aware. We also do not exercise control just by our votes. The press and voting are essential to our recovery and future. In its present condition both are our masters and will lead us to destruction. If we suffer defeat of our cultures and way of life by immigration or any similar theat, it will be because we did not regain control of these two issues.
Points of Unity
Submitted by Flanders Fields on Thu, 2006-11-23 23:14.
We have to consider what our real weaknesses are in order to combat any threat. Our weakness does not come from cultural inferiorities, multiculturalism or any fault of our own. Our weakness is an imposed weakness. We hear the voices of our masters each time we listen to the news, watch movies, hear our songs or go to vote for the lesser of two evils because there is really no one to vote for who truly shares our values more than the money they will make as a politician. The voice of our masters are usually smooth as honey to our minds and we are the ones who think (it has to be more convincing to those who don't really care or who happily join their PC compatriots).
The leftists in government want our submission and pay very good money for it. Have you ever seen the salaries of those who spout the lies and lie to us in ways where they will not be accountable for their lies? True, it is usually lies by nuance rather than outright falsehood. Sometimes it is inflections, lifted brows or careful timing which make their points obvious and indicate what we should think or believe. Do our fellow citizens watch this type of presentation without being outright influenced?
maybe, but only if our governments stop appeasing
Submitted by buccaneer on Thu, 2006-11-23 19:09.
We have to hope that the future does not belong to islam. Sadly, our governments don't seem to.
Here's a link to an article about a German high court sentence which allows Muslims to butcher animals without anasthesia. In the verdict they seem to explicitely argue that religious sensitivities are more important than the existing laws for animal protection (which, f.e previews animals have to be anasthesized before butchering to ease their pain).
Honestly I don't know how much more an animal suffers if its throat is cut without anasthesia but I feel sharia law creeping in by the backdoor.. it seems like a test run - first take on those without a voice, then those with a little voice and so on. What rights are next to be dumped to please and appease the religion of peace?
Gay's rights, women's rights? I am afraid there are an awful lot of rights that are offensive to Muslim sensitivities ...
Won't be long we'll be next.
Submitted by FLLegal on Thu, 2006-11-23 19:15.
Won't be long before they argue that "religious sensitivities are more important than the existing laws for infidels".
Pardon me as I launch into a short tirade:
Damn the false "prophet", pedophile, and violent ruthless murdering man named Muhammad. Thank God he is in hell now.
Damn the Quran.
Damn the "Allah of the Quran".
---End of tirade.
Thanks I feel better now.
We got appeasers for leaders - Where are the REAL men???
Submitted by FLLegal on Thu, 2006-11-23 19:20.
Thought I would share my thoughts that I had posted on Ynet:
Israel and U.S. needs a George Patton, MacArthur, or both.
A man who would have already deemed most of the Middle East the battleground and not ignore our enemies Iran and Syria.
Generals who would tell the World Court, International Criminal Court, the U.N., Humans Right Watch, Amnesty International, E.U. and Vatican to go screw themselves and if they cause a problem he'll kick their asses too and who would taunt them to go ahead and issue your warrants and then just try to serve them!!! Generals who rage war with great ruthlessness.
Those are the types of Generals we need which is nothing like what I see today and/or the retired ones that appear on CNN and FOX are pretty much PC pansies compared to the Generals of yesteryear like Patton and MacAruthur.
A General Sherman who would leave a trail of fire, devastation, and destruction in his path.
Such acts and ruthlessness is the only language our Muslim enemies, and they are our enemies, understand.
You fight to win. You fight to Victory.
Understand Islam before debating
Submitted by birdseye on Thu, 2006-11-23 05:08.
Most people do not understand the scourge of Islam before putting forth their "balanced" views. This article shows the author has deep understanding of the issue. There is no balanced view in the case of Islam because even though most Muslims are not terrorist, the ideology of the cult is defintely evil and anyone who heap praise on it have no understanding whatsoever of it.
immigration solution for europe!
Submitted by captain A on Wed, 2006-11-22 23:46.
Stop importing muslims and import MEXICANS! The mexicans are real hard workers and are great at melting into the population un like muslims. They are christian and are nice all arround people. There is a whole bunch of them to go arround and america can spare a few million also. MEXICAN ...its the new beef!
Running out of Mexicans
Submitted by sonomaca on Thu, 2006-11-23 00:57.
Actually, Mexican fertility rates have dropped precipitously. In the late 1970's Mexican fertility was around 7. The CIA factbook has it now at 2.42. I believe that it will go below replacement in the next few years.
Mexican migrants to the US were part of a fertility boom that has ended. In the future, the American problem will not be too many Mexicans, but too few (remember there are only 108 million Mexicans in total!).
Meanwhile, fertility in other LatAm countries has also fallen:
The highest is Guatemala at 3.82 (global rank #60) and going down fast. Belize is 3.60 and Honduras 3.59. El Salvador is 3.12 (rank #74). Bolivia and Dominican Republic are around 2.85. Peru and Columbia around 2.5. Venezuela and Costa Rica are just above replacement.
The US is more fertile than Chile and Brazil, and is about the same as Argentina.
Folks, Latin America is running out of people to send abroad. If you want a fresh supply of non-Muslim immigrants, you'll have to look to non-Muslim Africa. Everywhere else is pretty much tapped out.
the problem is immigration, not islam
Submitted by Armor on Wed, 2006-11-22 14:22.
vicenc: islam's out, we're "in".
I think the immigrants are in, and Europe is out.
"I also think that Islam doesn't stand a chance of winning."
When islam finally disappears, the last European will run into the street and yell: Yippee! We won!
In fact, some of our genes, and a part of our culture will live on among our successors, in the same way that we can still find traces of the Greek civilization in Turkey. But even so, I say we should stop immigration and start the repatriation.
"That doesn't mean that islam cannot cause immense pain and bloodshed, the nazis could and so could the muslims. But it means that islam will collapse inevitably, even if, say, Europe falls (fat chance, I say!)."
It is not the same thing at all. When nazism was defeated, Europe was still there.
So, what about the proverbial 1.2 billion muslims? They'll learn and evolve. That's what humans do: learn and evolve.
But over time, Africans do not become Chinese, and Arabs do not become European.
Summary: it's about immigration. We don't care about islam (although they are a pain in the neck).
She had the courage to resist the extreme left in some areas like work legislation, but not on the vital question of immigration. I wish she had left the Falklands to Argentina, and fought against the invasion of Britain.
Islam's future 2 of 2
Submitted by Bob Doney on Wed, 2006-11-22 12:46.
Take the case of Iran. The Iranians have been through many upheavals in recent times, many of them unhelpfully triggered by Western interference. They may yet have one more revolution in them - a democratic one. Some of the signs are very encouraging. For example there is a well-educated middle class. When Iranians have the chance to vote and participate they are keen to do so.
So we have to ask whether such a revolution would be encouraged or discouraged by threatening the Iranian state with economic and military sanctions. In particular, are we seriously going to threaten bombing and invasion to prevent them acquiring nuclear weapons. The absolutely crucial question to consider is what policy is most likely to bring about the democratic revolution which is the long-term solution to the "Iranian question".
As regards Islam itself, its core beliefs, as Fjordman has said it is really irrelevant to a technological, globalised, industrialised, wired and modern world. My own view (which I only had to hint at here to have scorn and ridicule heaped on my head!) is that as a doctrine it will fairly rapidly collapse under the weight of its own simplistic irrationality and irrelevance. But only if people are given a bridge of friendship, tolerance and hope over which to escape.
Islam's future 1 of 2
Submitted by Bob Doney on Wed, 2006-11-22 12:45.
Fjordman: "Perhaps, but some observers, including Mark Steyn and Mr. Selborne himself, may be overestimating it. They overlook the fact that Islam has many weaknesses, too. Don’t underestimate your enemy. Muslims should be credited for making clever use of our weaknesses, but this “we’re all doomed and have already lost” theme is overblown."
There's a lot of good stuff in this article, but I think one very important point is missed. "Islam" is not a single entity. Even on the religious side it is divided into mutually-hating sub-groups. The Shia/Sunni split is only one, if the most obvious, of those. The danger with saying "Islam this" and "Muslims that" is that by doing so you create an illusion of a single, monolithic enemy which simply doesn't exist unless we choose to create it. Absolutely the first priority must be to split the moderates from the loony-tunes, the real scholars from the fundamentalists.
We instantly see this with other threats. Does anybody believe that every North Korean presents a threat? It is the leadership that does. Find a way to remove that leadership and the situation changes out of all recognition, as happened in Eastern Europe. It's a safe bet that most North Koreans just want a better life for themselves and their families. They just don't see at the moment how they can get it.
Whatever we think about Islam as a religion, and to me it seems a particularly shallow and empty one, most of its adherents are perfectly capable of living peaceful, productive lives - with the right leadership.
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2006-11-22 09:47.
I appreciate your candour!
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2006-11-22 07:35.
Of the latter two, stateless nationalities will struggle for the self-determination of their own state - often from and at the expense of the obviously multinational states which contain them e.g. the Kurds, Palestinians, Basques, Flemings, Walloons. *In the case of multinational Belgium, the Walloons stand to gain from the federation. Nationless states are colonies: depots for the world's excess population. Unable to form a true nation beyond the civil definition, they are controlled by foreigners and their descendants (often demographically). While White Americans may believe they are far removed from their European ancestors, an African may not agree.
NOTE: Switzerland presents a unique exception, for it is multinational, yet is a federation mostly in the economic and military sense: its nations (German, French, Italian) have control over culture, immigration, etc.
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2006-11-22 07:32.
Thus, this 'fifth column' must be dealt with. The examples of Czechoslovakia and Poland are important, for both engaged in mass deportations of ethnic Germans. While chaotic in the short-term, this ensured that Poland was ethnically homogenous, and that both it and Czechoslovakia were free from irredentism from without and sabotage and subversion from within. Of course, only Stalin could have engineered such transplants, having had a great deal of practice in Soviet Russia. Today, such measures must be used on Europe's Muslims, who constitute the bulk of its non-European population, and even to sort out intra-European problems e.g. large Russian minorities in the Baltics, and Albanian encroachment in Serbia and Macedonia.
The nation is the most fundamental human social unit aside from one's own family. When state and nation overlap, the homogeneity allows unity and action to prevail when a country faces challenges. When national boundaries do not conform to ethno-national communities, there will be chaos e.g. Africa. There can be no multinational states (e.g. the USSR), multistate nationalities (e.g. East and West Germany), stateless nationalities (e.g. the Palestinians), or nationless states (e.g. so-called 'melting pots'); these are perversions of popular national sovereignty.
Submitted by Bob Doney on Wed, 2006-11-22 11:52.
KA: "When national boundaries do not conform to ethno-national communities"
I'm not quite sure where the USA would fit into your neat theory. Rumour has it that there are a few folks there who don't fit in with your optimum single ethno-homogeneity theory. Are you suggesting that a few hundred million Americans should be forcibly transported "home"? Perhaps all the mixed ones could be shipped to Canada. Those Canadians don't seem to care what types turn up on their doorstep.
"even to sort out intra-European problems e.g. large Russian minorities in the Baltics, and Albanian encroachment in Serbia and Macedonia"
Spot on here, KA. What the Balkans really really needs is another few decades of ethnic cleansing. It never failed in the past. Sarajevo would be the best place to start. It's going to be messy, but where there's a will there's a way.
Submitted by vicenc on Wed, 2006-11-22 12:52.
Well, finally a refreshing break from the usual whingeing. While I'm prepared to do my bit gun-in-hand if the nation is at stake, I also think that Islam doesn't stand a chance of winning.
Arnold Toynbee called Hitler's regime, like old Assur's power, a "tour de force" which only could end in collapse - even after a military victory.
Ernst Jünger - notoriously war-enjoying German officer - voiced a similar idea when he stated that it was no coincidence that the role models of the powers beaten in WWII were historical - Roman, Samurai, Germanic Warrior.
In much the same way, modern islam is a "tour de force", relying on a historical role model: the noble arab bedouin-warrior of the pre- and early islamic period.
A problem for islam nowhere more visible than where it has the power already - in Iran, the mosques are as empty as a Belgian church, I read.
That doesn't mean that islam cannot cause immense pain and bloodshed, the nazis could and so could the muslims. But it means that islam will collapse inevitably, even if, say, Europe falls (fat chance, I say!).
Toynbee sees the past islamisation not as a result of pressure - how many communists are there in Russia today? - but as a refuge against the winds of (internecine) war destroying the islamic world in the middle ages. No finger-pointing, please - war destroyed Antiquity, destroyed China and Bablyon, and WWII would have left Europe a smoldering trash heap, were it not for the fact that the USA was spared real trouble (lucky they were).
So, what about the proverbial 1.2 billion muslims? They'll learn and evolve. That's what humans do: learn and evolve.
Summary: islam's out, we're "in". Our duty is to stand the ground. So, with Robert Heinlein, let's "fight gallantly"; the future is Western (and not the 68er's one).
Submitted by Mission Impossible on Wed, 2006-11-22 09:01.
Regarding your 'Part II' posting.
Please allow me to state, with total sincerity, that this post (IMHO) ranks as one of your absolute finest (esp. 2nd para). Clarity and purpose. Excellent!
Submitted by trinitypower1 on Wed, 2006-11-22 07:00.
Steyn is correct on demographics and the death of the West.
You cannot quash Islam in a relativistic society without quashing all religion. When the burkas are tossed out the crucifixes will go with them.
The modern secular mind cannot decipher an evil religion from one that has brought about Western civilization.
Modern secular mind
Submitted by Bob Doney on Wed, 2006-11-22 11:39.
trinitypower1: "The modern secular mind cannot decipher an evil religion from one that has brought about Western civilization."
Are you sure? I would have thought that the modern secular mind, brought up in the clear light of the European Enlightenment and basic set theory, would be more than capable of making such a distinction.
I have to agree with Fjordman on this one. (Part I)
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2006-11-22 06:52.
While foreign policy and immigration must work together to contain Islamic population flows, the veritable 'fifth column' will do all in its power to: (a) keep the gate raised as long as it can, and (b) carry on the struggle with or without their brethren from overseas. Indeed, European Muslims can be expected to become agitated should Europe close its borders. There is a parallel to the American illegal immigration problem, where Latin American governments are publicly insisting that the US accept their people. Why? Because the regimes in Mexico City, Central America, and the Islamic World depend on having an outlet for their excess population...
Let's Stack Threats In Their Right Order
Submitted by Mission Impossible on Wed, 2006-11-22 05:46.
OK, we are all agreed our culture, our Western way of life, our value system, and civilization are under threat. Free-Thinkers everywhere, thanks to the many contributors on both sides of the Atlantic (who hopefully will one day be honoured) understand what the basic threats are:
(1) Internal moral decay and the collapse of ethics, etc. Obsession with economic issues and a failure to honour the spirit. The displacement of man at the head of his flock by women, whose nature is entirely unsuited for leadership. Cultural Marxism, moral relativism, etc., in all its manifestations.
(3) China, but mainly as an alternative universe and economic competitor (thus far at least).
(4) Over-population and the degradation of the environment.
(5) The impersonal forces of globalization, and all transnational institutions.
In 10-pin bowling, to knock all pins down with 1 ball requires the careful targetting of the lead pin, which above, must be number (1). Attack mercilessly, those that represent & sustain the behaviours and mind-sets in (1), even to the extent of initiating civil war if necessary, and the remaining threats in the list will be dealt with by default, with a fraction of the effort.
Whilst ruthlessly putting our own house in order, we must rigorously implement the containment of Islam, as advocated in Fjordman's article so as to distance our culture(s) from Islam.
Socialism & Marxism (and all those policies connected with them) are public enemy number one, and their means of sustenance must be entirely destroyed. Their luminaries removed, jailed, or disposed of. We have all had enough of these god-foresaken utopian destructive theories. Socialist, Marxist, & Communist leaders have already been responsible for mass-murders on an unimaginable scale. Now they are attempting to kill a whole culture & civilization in the name of theory. Therefore, their deaths must already be morally justified.
Submitted by Bob Doney on Wed, 2006-11-22 11:36.
You missed out bird flu and asteroids.
By the way, what did you think of Maggie Thatcher as a leader? I would have thought she ticked more of your boxes than most Western leaders of recent times. Was she "entirely unsuited for leadership"?
Submitted by Mission Impossible on Wed, 2006-11-22 12:18.
I did miss them Bob, and thanks for the reminder. Although I reckon we could lump Bird Flu with Ebola and a lot of other such viral infections. What say you?
Asteroids, yes, but I was trying to limit the list to just man-made threats - not apocalyptic endings from deep space else we'd have to include little green men. Captain Kirk is probably too busy 'kling-ing on' to do a 'mission impossible.'
Lady Thatcher? I respect and admire her, and am grateful for all she did for Britain, but some people tend to over-rate her. She was certainly the best PM Britain has had since Harold Macmillan.
Leadership? She was both exceptional, and an exception. Exceptions don't make a rule (as can be seen by the long string of female political incompetents and failures from that list called Blair's Babes). I would rather point to her husband Denis who, I believe, quietly guided his wife on policy and thus made her politically more affective than she might otherwise have been. Nothing wrong with that of course, but let's not put Maggie on a pedestal, on par with Queen Elizabeth I, please.
You'll always find an exceptional woman somewhere who can beat men at chess, run faster, lift heavier weights, talk with a deeper voice, and even shave more often! But, what does it prove? The corollary to this is, if you ever wish to look hard enough, you'll notice there are males here or there, who are prettier and more dainty than your average lady; such as in Asia where only the "crotch test" will determine, with any certainty, which gender the apparently "curvaceous lady" is.
Moral of the story? Eh ... let me think. Duhhh! Ah, this might do! If the first person you met, after landing in Jamaica, was an albino, you'd be tempted to think all the blacks were foreign holiday makers, just like you; right?
Never make rules from exceptions Bob. That is what socialists and marxists do all the time, hence the problem.
Submitted by Bob Doney on Wed, 2006-11-22 12:59.
MI: "Never make rules from exceptions Bob. That is what socialists and marxists do all the time, hence the problem."
I prefer the scientific approach to rules. It seems that you accept that Maggie was, in your terms, a good leader. Albeit she had a spouse to jog her elbow from time to time (I would think most good leaders do).
And you seem to be adding QE1 (that "feeble woman" as she described herself) to the list of women with leadership qualities.
So the new rule becomes: "Women are not suited to leadership, except for the ones that are". Yes, I can see that has merit. We could of course rejig it as: "Some women are suited to leadership". As of course are some men. I don't think you would suggest that ALL men are suited to leadership. So our new rule becomes: "Some men and some women are suited to leadership".
I expect you'd want to argue that proportionally more men than women are suited to leadership. If so, we only have to find out why and we're well on the way to having a useful hypothesis.
Scientifically Determined Rules = Marxist Dialectic
Submitted by Mission Impossible on Wed, 2006-11-22 13:16.
Bob, your ways of thinking, and your endless need to find "scientifically" determined hypotheses that would ultimately mean little in the real world, reminds me of the proverbial Russian Doll. Or perhaps a spiral that is wound back on itself.
I already know you prefer the "scientific approach to rules" because, deep down, you are a hard-core Marxist. I accept you may not know this, but that's where you keep coming from, and from where your smugness is drawn.
Some men and some women are suited to leadership.
Mmmm, that's a nice scientific rule. OK then ... How about:
Some dogs and some cats make a mess ???
Some cars and some bikes cost a bomb ???
Some days and some nights are better than others ???
Some ideas and some rules are suited for ridicule ???
Aristotle would not be pleased.
There is no science in human relations; only precedent and hormones, and the lady ain't got the right ones.
Submitted by Bob Doney on Wed, 2006-11-22 15:44.
MI: "hormones, and the lady ain't got the right ones"
By the way, which are the "right" hormones that ladies ain't got? I thought all the same hormones are found in men and women.
Europe getting what it deservers, espically france.
Submitted by captain A on Wed, 2006-11-22 05:07.
Yes its almost a pleasure to see the french having to deal with its muslim youths torching and terrorizing its citizens. Your getting what you deserve for blocking every opertunity to work with the U.S. and U.K. to stop islamic terrorists and Iran. The world trade center attacks will be nothing to what is comming to the french. Its easy to block the U.S. at the U.N. but its really hard to stop terrorists in your own back yard. Will the new woman french socialists leader have to wear a BERKA soon? I do enjoy seeing the reports that the french are being terrorized daily by those muslim youths. They will grow up to have 7 to 10 children of their own while you french only have 1.5 per couple. Its just a matter of time and times not on your side france. Keep blaming Israel and the U.S. to the very end because we will remember your actions. When you try to come over here to escape the mid evil laws the muslims will impose we will tell you to go to hell. Deal with the mess youve made for your selves, looks like ANOTHER surrender for the french is comming. This time America isnt comming to bail your asses out again. Ill be watching, VIVA LA FRANCE...
The deserving French
Submitted by Bob Doney on Wed, 2006-11-22 11:25.
captain A: "Your getting what you deserve for blocking every opertunity to work with the U.S. and U.K. to stop islamic terrorists and Iran."
Sorry to break in here when you're in full flow, but the French security services were trying to get the US and UK governments interested in taking the Islamist terror threat seriously many many years before 9/11. Just that, for whatever reason, the American and British politicians weren't listening.
Democratic wake-up call
Submitted by sonomaca on Wed, 2006-11-22 06:48.
The left here in the US has always revered the French (and Swedish) welfare state. John Kerry et al. love the short work-week, the generous welfare benefits, the state-run health care system, the state-owned companies, the PC culture, and the meddling nanny state.
I think the "unrest" (read intifada) these past two years have made it difficult for the Kerry's and Clinton's to make the case for a French society transplant over here.
Still, they love Sweden. But, word of the collapse of Swedish civil society hasn't made the transatlantic voyage just yet.
Submitted by Frank Lee on Wed, 2006-11-22 04:37.
I, for one, have never thought of the political left as comprising compassionate people -- that is, people who are more compassionate than any other group. And in one-on-one situations in academia, where I am condemned to work, they are routinely the least compassionate, most petty and self-adoring people imaginable.
Submitted by logicalman on Wed, 2006-11-22 02:45.
Even if its population decreases, that would not be a problem given increased automation made available by PC. Muslim immigration is allowed in most European country for most likely the wrong reason: to do menial labor. Why? don't they end up in wellfare roll anyway? Dumb politicians see dwindling population, therefore they promote muslim immigration, as they don't see the benefits of automation. I visited many European cities (Paris, Strasbourg, Munich, Vienna etc...). I found there're too many people in those cities, especially Paris. It's difficult to find parking space in most European cities. I'll even say there's over population in US cities too. Houses are being built on smaller and smaller lots, and their prices are out of wack because demand rises faster than supply.
Yessir, there is overpopulation everywhere, especially in Muslim countries, where lives are "cheap" to the point they kill each other without their conscience bothering them.
Submitted by Armor on Wed, 2006-11-22 03:51.
Muslim immigration is allowed in most European country for most likely the wrong reason: to do menial labor.
Not even that. Immigration is allowed for no reason at all. At first, I thought it was misguided ideology by well meaning people. Now, I think the far left just enjoys inflicting pain on the western world, and intimidating the opposition. Who still thinks they are compassionate people ?
Paul Goble and Islamification of Russia
Submitted by sonomaca on Wed, 2006-11-22 01:19.
He's a former State Dept and RFL/VOA guy who knows more about the former Soviet Central Asian Republics than anyone in the US. Here is what he has to say in WaTimes recently:
2.5 million Muslims live in Moscow
Ethinic Russian birthrate in Moscow: 1.1
Hundreds of thousands of Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Tajiks, Kyrgyz entering Russia, which has Muslim population of 25 million
By 2015, half of Russian conscripts will be Muslim
By 2020, 20% of Russia's population will be Muslim (I think this is an underestimate).
In 2035, there will be more Muslims than Russians in Russia.
Muslims in Russia tend to be secular, but radical influences have begun to change that. Muslims are generally treated very badly, and so are thought susceptible to Wahhabist and Salafist elements.
Couple of thoughts:
Are Russians going to rely on Muslims to defend Russian territory? Good luck with that.
Who's going to get the nukes?
Will a Muslim Russia be able to use the energy card as a way to hasten Islamification of Europe?
Submitted by sonomaca on Wed, 2006-11-22 01:49.
Europe's population will decline precipitously with or without Muslims. If there is no further immigration, Europe will become just a giant pasture.
If, on the other hand, Europe does become an Islamic continent, it won't remain the economic and technological powerhouse it once was. In fact, what will distinguish it from the underdeveloped Middle East or North Africa? Answer: nothing.
If, as you say, Islam is on its slow deathbed, why should those who hope to preserve Western Civilization care? They will have bred themselves out of existance by then.
Who will be fighting Islam in 100 years time? It will be the descendants of Hispanic immigrants to the US (if the US is still one country by then), it will be African and Latin American Christians, and it will be Hindus. Most other populations will have long since extinguished themselves.
We in Europe and America should all realize that this is not really our fight, since we won't be around to witness the grand battles to come.