The Sign of the Cross

english-flag.jpgA quote from Kristor at Larry Auster’s blog, 10 July 2008

Most Americans are avoiding the idea [that we are at war with Islam] with all their might; that's why such obfuscations as "Islamofascism" are so useful and popular. No one wants to recognize the fact that we are at war. I sure don't. It is not a happy thought. If we are at peace, we can afford to be liberal with Muslims. But if we are in a war to the death, we simply cannot. If we are at war, then Muslims are simply our enemies, as the Nazis were our enemies, and the Japanese. If we are at war, then our policies must be shaped, not to support our enemies, not to welcome them, but to destroy them. In that case, all sorts of policies that would have seemed outrageous in time of peace become mere common sense; as Japanese internment during WWII was mere common sense; as Austerian separation is now mere common sense. […]

Adjusting to the idea that we are at war is difficult for anyone. But for a dyed in the wool liberal – i.e., for a normal modern American like [Robert] Spencer, or me – the confrontation with Islam is much more difficult even than that. For if Spencer's world-historical analysis is correct, our conflict with Islam is far deeper than our war with, say, Hitler. Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin, Mao: all these we could treat as morbid defects of civilization. It could have made some sense to say that Germany was "hijacked" by Nazism. It even makes sense to say that Russia was "hijacked" by Marxism. Once we defeated our enemies in those lands, once we destroyed the champions of those evil perversions of civilization, normal civilization could and did re-assert itself. Bonapartism was not essential to the French, as it turned out, nor was Marxism essential to the Russians. The Germans are getting on just fine without Nazism.

But Islam has not been "hijacked" by jihad. Jihad is essential to Muslims. They define themselves as utterly Other to us. And since the Muslim Other – unlike, say, the Inuit or Samoan Other – is inimical to our essential civilization, it forces an abandonment of Western liberality. We cannot afford to be liberal to Islam, or to Muslim nations, as we are liberal to Inuits, or as we were liberal to the Germans after WWII. The only long-run alternatives open to the West in respect to Islam are to convert Muslims to some apostasy or other, or to destroy them. Indeed, these are the very terms in which Mohammed framed Islam's long-run alternatives with respect to us. Thus they give us no option: they force us to the realization that one way or another, sooner or later, either Islam will be eliminated from history, or we will. […]

In order for the liberal to admit that liberalism is mistaken, in order to admit that some people and some ideas are evil, he must admit that there is an objective morality, and that nominalism is false. And if nominalism is false, so that truths are objective, the questions that then force themselves upon him are, "Where are these objective truths, and what is the mode of their objective existence?" The only satisfactory answer is somehow monotheist. So the abandonment of liberalism, when carried to its logical conclusion, just is the abandonment of paganism. For the liberal, that conversion to monotheism must greatly raise his stakes in his own actions; must make his sinfulness a really serious matter, a great personal danger, and force him to consider a different, more virtuous, and more difficult way of life. (Give up promiscuity and start attending Mass? How much fun is that?) For the West generally, apostasy from liberalism would raise the question whether our tanks should bear, not inverted V's, but white shields blazoned with red crosses.

Diagnosis ...

@ sag'


Do you think Kapperta would think any better of me if I told her one of my favourite actors on tv is...


Dick Van Dyke  ?



Two types of evil

It seems to me beside the point to note that the countries with the largest Muslim populations do not have as many crazies per capita as do, say, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. The point is that the so-called intellegentsia of Indonesia, Turkey, and Egypt are cowards who do not speak out against the crazies. They may not do evil, but they permit evil to happen. Indeed, they seem to condone evil. It is routine for the Saudi police to whip Filipino guest workers when they are caught holding clandestine Catholic prayer meetings. There are no churches or Hindu temples in all of Saudi Arabia, despite there being hundreds of thousands of Christian and Hindu guest workers there. It is forbidden for a non-Muslim even to set foot inside the city limits of Mecca and Medina. Where is the condemnation from the "good" Muslims in response to this kind of idiocy? It is nonexistent, for how can they speak up against the "purity" of Mecca and Medina when the rules against non-Muslim pollution of the holy cities is Koranic? Even in Turkey, any Turk who dares to be self-critical of Turkish history is threatened with jail time. The Western governments may be at war only with Islamic extremism, but clearly Western liberalism is at war with Islam, or should be.

@ kappert

And It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is to witness an intelligent response from the pen of a fool.

Now we've got the pleasantry out of the way, let's get back to the substance, shall we?

@ Sag'

"Pitt is to Addington as London is to Paddington."


I get the distinct impression that Armor could well have made of himself your personal kappert. Bad move on Armor's part or what? 

@ kappert

"Aren't you able to get something more actual than the Rev Thomas Hughes...?"

If you were paying attention you'd realize that I don't need to do that because the good reverend did that for both of us.

Instead of criticizing the missionary's message, why don't you try studying the message of the 'Messenger'? It's all there, in the Quran, Hadith, Sunnah ... 




guess the A: to that is blowin' ...?


Isn't kprt the lasting, or at least the last remaining, part of the triceptical Tink-Tank, of which the two other heads appear to have lost it, for I haven't heard of "Zitzak" in ages ;-) 


(can't rememb the 3rd one, but as a stooge the armoured night has kindly descended upon this forum, to replace the Void ;-). 


The Rope and the Umlaut

@ kappert


re: Rev Bailey and the history of Jihad


Give me 20 minutes debating this topic with you in front of your students and I guarantee that by the end of the debate they'll be stringing you up from the nearest minaret by your Hackballchen. What's more, I'll throw in the rope and the umlaut ..



@ Sag'

Methinks kappert doth protest too much!


Q: Is kappert what he/she/it professes to be?


Taoist or Salaugh -ist? THAT is the question...


Kappert's dhimmitude explained?


Is kappert preparing himself for the all but inevitable era of Eurabian subjugation?


"A lunatic must not be slain unless he fight...but yet where he is found fighting it is necessary to slay him, for the removal of evil".


If so, kappert clearly isn't as dumb as he likes to pretend. However, in the end even that ploy may not be enough to save his sorry ass!


"A person who is insane occasionally stands, during his lucid intervals, in the same predicament as a sane person".




My dear friend, aren't you able to get something more actual than the Rev Thomas Patrick Hughes, who served as a Church Missionary Society missionary at Peshawar 1864-1884, at the climax of Victorianism?

Geza answers Kristor about Austerian Separationism

Here's Geza's last answer to Kristor:

Geza answers Kristor about Austerian Separationism

Be glad that you are at a free and open site as the Brussels Journal, so that you can get all these links right. You see at VFR, Lawrence Auster refuses to link to my site, so I fail to see how the VFR reader are going to understand what Kristor is replying to.

There has been two articles by Kristor and two by Geza. It's a rather funny situation because Kristor writes all his articles at VFR, and Geza his articles at my site. Since Lawrence Auster had enough of my questions to him that he couldn't answer and excommunicated me, he has refused to answer any email from me. But how funny isn't it is that he cannot even make himself to link to my site?

Could any VFR reader passing by here please tell Lawrence how silly this is?

Anyone for Jihad?

For all those jihadi- "misunderstanders of Islam" out there:

Statistical analysis of the trilogy [Koran, Sira, Hadith] reveals that 97% of references to "jihad" relate to war and a mere 3% to the concept of "inner struggle".

(Center for Political Islam)

Non-violent jihad is entirely possible, yet no-one would notice it. "Unbelievers" in the rest of the world do notice however the inconveniences of violent jihad, which until Vienna was liberated in 1683, was a job exclusively carried out by Islamic governments. Since 9/11 we now know that globalized private enterprise has taken over.


The US-based Center for Political Islam is of course an ideal source for your statistics. Try alternatives: Peace in Islam by Hasan al-Banna or, if you don't read books,;;, ...

RE: Jihad is essential to Muslims

@ kappert


You wrote, "The word "jihad", as originally used by the Prophet, was meant to shed light on the struggle and effort individuals, and mankind as a whole, must undertake to clean(se) themselves of pain, illicit desire, anger and violence".


Agreed, but the keyword here is "originally". The keyword missing from that explanation is the word "evolved". Let's see if I can help you with this.The following link seeks to explain that evolutionary process. Please read it in its entirety, paying particular attention to the author's note at the beginning, then get back to me with your conclusions on the matter.



Rev Bailey

The Reverend should to a similar essay on the Bible. And then, compare which is more bloodthursty.

My take on it

Now I have added my take on it:

Regarding Spencer and Auster. My overall point here is that the product "Spencer" keeps what it promises, while the product "Auster" does not. Spencer is a specialist, an Islam scholar and critique, and does not claim to have an overall solution. Auster on the other hand does. But as I have shown in previous articles, his position is seriously flawed. As Geza said, he is patently unable to condemn Islam as evil, or to speak in terms of a life-or-death war on Islam. He even degenerates into ugly Islam apologism (something Spencer would never do).

From this swampy of a position Auster imagines that he's entitled to take the high road and take everyone else to task for their failures (and the Auster way of doing this is to tear them down in the dirtiest sort of way), even if the criticism does not even apply (tone deaf, remember?). Auster imagines that Spencer must show his anti-Jihadist credentials by writing a full length article on Muslim immigration (only Auster and his acolytes think so, no one else has got that idea). But Spencer does not profess to be an expert on immigration policy. How exciting, and more importantly, convincing would an article on Muslim immigration be if the only two points made were: we must stop further immigration from Muslim countries and we must convince the Muslims already here to leave. It's ridiculous, of course. Instead, Spencer provides the platform for Hugh Fitzgerald to write about these things (and about overall solutions) at his site. And with solutions that are more solid than Auster's. But what does that matter to Auster, who's got tunnel vision and is obsessed by attacking and tearing down Spencer.

All in all, Spencer is better aware of how we are in a total war with Islam, simply because he knows Islam better than Auster.

@ kappert

You are often happy to answer opinion-based questions with opinion-based answers, but NEVER appear capable of responding to questions testing your own logic on these issues. Why do you think that would be?

i usually love the stuff

i usually love the stuff thats posted here and even this piece is i enjoyed very much because its the plain and simple truth.

However, ans im not a native english speaker so maybe i misunderstood but the statement that fighting islam somehow means admitting that liberalism is wrong and admitting liberalism is wrong somehow makes that liberals should become religious, seems totally and utterly ridiculous to me.



What is your point??

my point

... is, that 'plain and simple truth' maybe interpreted as universal, with other words, the 1.5 billion muslims are 'our' enemies, which is simply grotesque. It is also ridiculous, that Christian faith manifests a 'superiority' towards other believes, and I think that Mr. Spencer (and his consorts) has his spot on FOX television and shouldn't bother more serious media. Finally, the thought that we are 'at war with muslims' is simply an exaggeration and not shared by muslims (except al-Qaida terror-like groups). That Christianity is a peaceful attitude, seems to be forgotten by these commentators.


Islam isn't just a religion, it's also a political entity by its own dogmas. It doesn't permit a secular co-existence with the state. It strives to be the state. The secularism that has existed in Turkey is imposed by the military, how long that lasts remains to be seen. A secular co-existance with the state collapsed with the Shah. Are you getting the picture yet?

Of course we in the west are "at war" with this primative and anti-human rights "ism". It's at war with us and has been for decades. Perhaps you've failed to notice the bloody borders across the globe where Islam meets The Other.

Oh, sure, there are Muslims oblivious to the worst teachings of the Koran that go about their business without bothering anyone, but, far too many in poll after poll in the west approve of jihad, terrorism and Sharia laws. That's fine as long as they do not remain among us.

"War" is a perfectly acceptable description of defeating ths dangerous ideology.


The biggest countries with muslim-population are far away from any literalist-scripturalists (vulgo: fundamentalism): Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Egypt, Turkey, Nigeria. Nevertheless, too often proponents of this line of thought resort to what is known as "proof-texting". That is identifying portions from the scriptures and use them out of context to proof or disproof a certain point. It has been used to limit the rights of women, religious minorities, the imposition of cruel punishment, etc. etc. In the present-day Muslim world there is a lot of debate over exactly this issue. It appears that by their sheer vocality, the proponents of a strict linking of state and religion, based on a literal interpretation of the scriptures are prevailing. However, this is misleading. Unfortunately in the present antagonized climate the voices of more moderate liberal-minded Muslim thinkers is drowned out.


Unfortunately in the present antagonized climate the voices of more moderate liberal-minded Muslim thinkers is drowned out.

Hey, keppart, care to name them, those liberal minded Muslim thinkers, got a link to them, their writings, their blog sites? Or is that just a guess on your part? A miniscule handful won't do either to prove your theory.

Decades into violent global Islamism and just who are these public or published Muslim "liberals"? Get real.

You're still an idiot, but, I love your perserverance.


Thanks for the compliments. Meanwhile, as long as you foster mutual ignorance, the 'idiot' makes a ricochet.


Oh, and, who cares about the total Muslim population, Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state that burned Europe to the ground and murdered 6 million Jews, their total population number at the time was irrelevant. Think you can grasp that point?


You should say Nazi-Europe, under German 'leadership'.

Jihad is essential to Muslims

The word "jihad" comes from the three-letter root of j,h,d - when grouped together means "effort". Consequently, the word "jihad" means struggle, endeavor, undertaking and journey. When someone is asked to perform his best in any endeavor, the common verb is jahid. The word "jihad", as originally used by the Prophet, was meant to shed light on the struggle and effort individuals, and mankind as a whole, must undertake to clean themselves of pain, illicit desire, anger and violence.
The sign of the cross: "Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God." Matthew 5:9