Islam is winning.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
45 comments to Discussion point XXII |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Perhaps, but only until the non-Islam side gets really pissed off. Admittedly, this has taken longer than I had expected.
Depends where.
In the short term maybe, with a fair bit of help from various non-Islamists who are just desparate for that something, anything, that can get one over on the capitalist west. However in its current form Islamic culture is sterile. It does not create and therefore will loose out to the west in the long term.
Depends on whether you think it’s a competition I suppose
Islam is winning.
Winning what?
The fact of the war is a problem, that Islam is apparently currently winning isn’t.
I go with Michael on this one. Islam is winning on the home front because we are are not even fighting back at this point.
At home, the nasties are setting the agenda and refuse to even acknowledge that there is a fight on, let alone allow us to win.
Problem the nasties have, the man in the street knows he is being lied to and this won’t last. We are seeing the first stirrings of this in Canada now, where the nasty controlled CHRC made the mistake of going after fighters, rather than their normal choice of some poor schlob who couldn’t fight back. They are horrified to find themselves being scrutinised and this will be a skirmish to our side.
Once we do start fighting, Islam will be in trouble.
Prior to el Alamein Britain lost every battle. Afterwards, we didn’t lose any.
We have to get rid of the shits pretending to be leaders first, but once we do that, these bastards are toast.
Islam is a lot like B.Hussein Obama. The more you know the less there is to like.
That isn’t the criterion for winning, not in this game. Besides all else, Islam isn’t trying to out-compete the west or out-produce the west, or out-create the west. It’s trying to destroy the (values of the) west, which is quite different.
Islam has some very effective strategies, many of which very effectively use western values to undermine western values. Another is simple intimidation. By maintaining a quite small population of potential assassins in each enemy nation, the indigenous nationals are frightened into submission by threat of assassination, as we’ve seen with filmmakers, cartoonists, the politicians who represent them, etc. Because the west has renounced old fashioned inhumane but effective strategies (such as mass deportation, internment, etc) the western nation has no effective defence against the assassin pool except half-hearted weak pleading. It’s very effective.
Some people demand strong action, but there’s little strong action that can be taken without doing the unthinkable in terms of human rights. And thus the rot continues.
I do personally think that the strong libertarian support for open borders (entirely founded on purist economic grounds) is wrong. In a libertarian world, it would be just the right thing to do. In a world full of homicidal nutballs, it’s suicidal.
The rational, but very cruel, thing to do, would be to round up every muslim in the country, airlift them to Iran, and dump them there. Since such actions are beyond the pale, especially as most of the most dangerous ones are full British citizens, there’s little else that can be done. As it is, as the peril intensifies the government will be pretty much obligated to remove civil liberties from the population at large and thus we are damned. Western (liberal/libertarian) values can only function in a westernised society. As our society is steadily dewesternised both by the increase in nonwesternised citizens and by the active malignity of the gramscian hegemons, the liberties associated with it will gutter and die.
A decade ago, hardly anyone had even heard of sharia. Things are moving fast.
I think this depends on your definition of “winning”. In terms of giving people who so desire a sense of meaning and fulfillment in the their lives via organized religion, Islam appears to have the highest number of adherents, thus it is “winning” in that regards.
In terms of economic, social or technological advancement, it appears that those countries that have the highest percentage of muslim believers are losing that battle handily.
In terms of liberty, well, that battle was over before it started. Islam means submission, ie; no liberty.
Islam means submission, ie; no liberty.
In Christianity, the metaphor is we are the children of God, and he is our loving father.
In Islam, the core metaphor is we are the slaves of God, and he is our just master.
Fuck that – I am no ones slave.
I don’t care how just the master is, the metaphor is degrading.
“we are the children of God, and he is our loving father.”
Have you read the Old Testament lately? 😉
“Prior to el Alamein Britain lost every battle. Afterwards, we didn’t lose any.”
Not strictly true of course. We captured Madagascar before the first battle of El Al and we lost at Arnhem afterwards.
Just being pedantic 🙂
CountingCats: Prior to el Alamein Britain lost every battle. Afterwards, we didn’t lose any.
Market Garden is a victory now?
Have you read the Old Testament lately? 😉
I said Christianity. This refers to the teachings of the New Testament, by definition.
Market Garden is a victory now?
Ok, I am wrong, it happens.
Although Market Garden was a tactical failure, not a strategic loss.
What is winning, and the winning of what?
Taken as a “set of convictions,” is the concept of Islam growing through conversions, gaining new adherents;
or
Is it fragmenting through secularizations?
Is it also fragmenting in those elements that once bound its adherents together?
Are there now not more “varieties” of worship and formalisms and far less unity of convictions in what has been derived from the “teachings” of Mohammed, than even as recently as two generations ago?
What are the factors that cause people to “hold on to” the form of Muslim “faith” into which they are born, and how are those factors changed as the peoples move in great waves throughout the world?
If winning is survival, the hebrews have won, many times over. The indications are developing that the concept of Islam (as distinguished from individual modes of worship) will not survive – especially as the force of Western Civilization continues to press Eastward.
“Islam is winning.”
No!……………….but we are losing.
Everybody picks on poor Islam. In the West, the Christians do. In India, the Hindus do. In Thailand, they labor under cruel Buddhist repression. And China doesn’t like them either.
One of these days, at least one of these foul oppressors will get pissed enough to do a right job of it.
In the battle for ‘hearts and minds’ fundamentalist Islam is a contender along with both national and international socialism. I give the edge to national socialism. Evangelical Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant) has been growing steadily while ‘secular’ or passive Christianity is wilting. With the big ‘secular Christian’ population to draw from, Evangelical Christianity has the potential to be a contender but is not now.
Libertarian individualism? Well … I guess … um … … Hey, there’s always Ron Paul!
This is actually a bad sign, not a good one. People don’t split up and spin of factions about stuff they don’t really care about. The strength of any general religion can be measured in the number of competing versions there are.
In Christianity, the metaphor is we are the children of God, and he is our loving father.
In Islam, the core metaphor is we are the slaves of God, and he is our just master.
Fuck that – I am no ones slave.
I don’t care how just the master is, the metaphor is degrading.
Last time I went to church (I never did go very often, not sure exactly how long ago this was now), I seem to recall everyone repeating the line “we are not even worthy to gather the crumbs from under your table.” Sounds more like something one would say to a master than a loving father, to me. Never been back since, never will go again.
Oops, I don’t seem to have done the quote thing properly there. This:
was supposed to be a quote, and the rest was mine!
Kev wrote:
Sounds like the same crap I heard from Bette Davis in Now, Voyager.
Then again, the only part of that movie I really enjoyed was her nervous breakdown — the scenery chewing is good for a laugh.
Of course, in current Western society, we can mock Christianity in the way the Boston Brahmins were mocked in Now, Voyager. But if you try to mock Islam that way, our worses will be after you shrieking intolerance, or worse, racism. That, and you’ll probably have some evil Moslem bastard trying to kill you so he can get his 72 gay virgins. I’m not certain what this says about Islam “winning”, though.
If an Archbishop can suggest that Britain adopt Shariah law, and not be run out of the cathedral with torches, tar, and pitchforks, then Islam is winning.
What the hell is going on over there?
Midwesterner
Presumably the statement was about Islam, as a concept.
As a concept it requires unity in all things. There are no separate states, nations or manners of submission.
Whether those who might once have formed the core of Islam will coalesce into something more difficult for the “societies” in which they are located is another matter.
There’s an old joke: “Q: why aren’t there any Muslims in Star Trek? A: because it’s et in the future.”
I foresee three possible outcomes of the existential war between enlightenment and 7th century moon god worship:
1) subjugation of the entire world under Islam
2) an enduring Warm War (i.e. neither cold nor hot, as existed in Europe until the defeat of the Ottoman Empire)
3) the thorough and merciless extirpation of all nations and peoples that adhere to Islam.
These are ranked in ascending order of likelihood, in my view. Under any reasonable extrapolation, billions (yes, with a ‘B’) are going to die.
Thats; “SET in the future,” naturally
“Sounds more like something one would say to a master than a loving father, to me. Never been back since, never will go again.”
Go again! Or at least read the passage this is drawing on (Matthew 15:21-28) in context. Jesus is baiting the Canaanite woman in a kind of battle of wits, and she puts his own disciples to shame for both her faith and her cleverness.
A church liturgy that puts the congregation in her place is begging, but with a twinkle in our eyes: We aren’t at the table trusting in our own goodness but in God’s mercies. We’re unworthy, but God is gracious; so we can expect him to grant us access to his “dear Son Jesus Christ” to dwell in him. Basically we’re servants asking our ‘Master’ to become our ‘Father’ by making us heirs in the confidence that our request will have been granted, as the Canaanite woman’s was.
1) They can only win if we let them – and if we let then – then it wasn’t worth fighting for anyway.
2) But that’s not going to happen. Sooner or later, the mask will slip – and then they’re toast (as in vaporized).
They are winning tactically: they have managed to bully elements of government into widening blasphemy law. On the other hand, atheism has become much more respectable. I am not just talking about the best-selling books of Richard Dawkins, but a general sense that in the West, it is now acceptable to state that religions, in the main, suck.
In discussing “winning”, it depends what one means. Islamic populations in the West have grown but there are no less immune to the impact of things like secular liberal culture than other ethnic groupings are, and population growth is decelerating.
Certainly the Western awareness of Islam, and the various factions of that faith, is far greater now that it was prior to 9/11, but ‘winning’? Perhaps if we knew what the competition rules of entry were then we could define what counts as losing versus winning?
Don’t forget, the West isn’t the only side in play. China’s ascendency will make it a target, sooner or later, and I would love to see the schadenfraude as the PRC gets its due for its anti-US tilt in the current ideological conflict.
Then it’d get really interesting when China takes off the gloves and gets nasty with Islam.
Oh well, I can dream.
Social democracy and monetary insanity will be the downfall of the Western world, not Islam, not China, not Russia.
well I’m not wearing a burqa and I’m in college so I wouldnt say it’s winning quite yet.
And some good news for our side- The Catholic Church is in discussions with the Saudis regarding setting up a Church in Arabia! How’s that for pluralism?
Ian B;
When you say ‘hardly anyone’, you had better surround that by a qualifier that more or less read ‘in the so-called Western hemisphere of the world still steeped in traditional Judaeo-Christian values and Hellenistic philisophy’ and/or ‘in the Eastern part of the world ruled over with an iron fist by despotic communists’. Because, believe you me, in the REST of the world? We’ve heard of shariah, oh yes we have. Even two decades ago. Even THREE decades ago.
The idea of “rounding them up” is impractical. Here’s just one (of many) reasons. Taqqifa(sp?). Islam has a very different concept of martyrdom from Christianity. In Islam you are allowed to deny your faith if it is expedient. What do you do if someone says they’re apostate? That they like pints and pork pies?
The situation with Islam resembles to me something more like the Cold War than WWII. It’s an annoying irritation and it sometimes boils over but I don’t see it ever really kicking-off big time. The combined might of the Arab world has been kicked so many times by plucky little Israel and the idea of any of them taking direct military action over anything much is unbelievable. Oh, another similarity with the Cold War is the size of the fifth columns we have.
But this might change… If that nutter in Tehran gets nukes or Pakistan implodes under the weight of it’s own absurdity and some mullah gets his hands on Pakistan’s nukes then it’s time to grab an entrenching tool and dig like buggery. Because I have no doubt that the Red Mosque Gang would use them.
In the 1930’s Nazism and Fascism also seemed to be winning, and in the 1970’s Communism too.
As for the impossibility of those actions currently deemed “beyond the pale”, do not forget who bombed Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both the USA and the UK have a very ruthless strain when it comes down to a fight (just ask any surviving member of the 1940 French fleet at Oran how far will the British go, or any American-Japanese old enough to have lived through WWII about American determination to do the unthinkable). If it is necessary, it will get done.
Nick M’s point is great: there seems like a pretty low chance of general war breaking out over religion.
It is laughable to read that we are going to have a global conflagration decades from now because of what has happened in the Arab world in the last decade. (Ian B, etc.)
Ten years ago oil was under fifteen bucks a barrel and the intelligentsia were all spouting the then-common knowledge that the natural resources bust proved that dependence upon them was bad, and things like IT and pharmaceuticals were good. Remember how gold was a pain in the ass and central banks were told by leading lights to sell at generational lows? And they actually did just that!
Now that there is a natural resources boom the same brand of nitwits take it as a given that Islam is a power that will rise to do battle with Western Civ.–they have already moved on to postulating how that conflict will look. And I am sure you can find plenty of recent posts here on gold being the absolute keystone of currencies.
Go ahead and do so. There will probably be nobody to hold you to account in 2018 for conflating normal price cycles with civilizational clash. But sheesh, do you really want to commit yourself to such dipstick thoughts? It isn’t like we pay by the word here.
One of the best answers to the question posed above can be found here.
Michiganny,
I’m not sure I follow you. If by “general war” you mean nation states lining up their tanks for battles like WWII, then no, probably not. Or at least not on a level above Hezbollah vs Israel or Iraq vs Kuwait et al. or Serbia/Bosnia/Kosovo. But there are all sorts of new ways to prosecute a limited war, and to make it politically easier for the West to lose them. Sure, you can bomb them all into a fine paste – but they’re already close in among us, hiding behind innocents and in front of the cameras. And they’re only asking that we capitulate an inch at a time. What’s an inch, compared to months of riots and mayhem?
I don’t know what the reference to business cycles and gold is for. I base my own understanding of their motivations on 1400 years of history, and what they say in their books. The price of oil may speed or slow the process, but it has never stopped. They are as capable of implementing societal change in the West as any other political movement, especially those willing to use violence. Waiting until they are powerful enough to be a real and unarguable threat is possibly not the wisest way to deal with them.
Rob,
Interesting article, but I got a bit confused as to which position he was taking. Early on he says: “The Muslim immigrants to these areas were not seeking a new way of life when they arrived; they expected to continue their old lives, but more prosperously. They neither anticipated, nor wanted, the inevitable cultural tensions of translocation, and they certainly never suspected that in the long run they could not maintain their culture and their religion intact.” Then at the end he says: “The Iranian refugees who have flooded into the West are fleeing Islam, not seeking to extend its dominion, as I know from speaking to many in my city.” I know that in one he’s talking about Muslim immigrants and in the other Iranians, but he seems to be talking about the latter as if they had implications regarding the former, if indeed they are disjoint groups.
If they’re fleeing Islam, why are all these new mosques going up? Why do immigrants continue to identify themselves as Muslims, and do the whole “religion of Peace” thing? If they’re not, and they have come to understand that their religion cannot survive close contact with us for long (as indeed Islam teaches) then what do they intend to do about it?
perhaps. perhaps not. but even if so, remember that in 1942 the Germans and the Japanese were winning, too
Pa, I have not read the article yet, but from what I have seen, the distinction between Iranians and other Muslims (especially Arabs) is a valid one. These mosques being built are not necessarily for the Iranians.
Reasons for initial Islamic success:
1 – People in non-Islamic lands can convert to Islam; Muslims in Islamic lands often face the death penalty if they convert. Honour killings can extend this to residents of the West.
2 – The West adopted a PC attitude to assimilation. Children in the West are often brought up believing in the evils of the West and the greatness of the ‘other’. Reducing assimilation.
3 – Westerners stopped producing children at replacement levels. Muslims produce more than enough to replace themselves.
4 – Many Muslims see it as their duty to conquer the West, and the rest of the world. Many Westerners refuse to face the reality of their situation.
Three possible results:
1 – Europe goes Islamic and on past precedent, this will be forever and extremely unpleasant for those who do not want to convert.
2 – Europe engages in the expulsion of Muslims, in a manner similar to Ferdinand and Isabella’s expulsion of the Jews. This fascistic episode will cause misery to many good and innocent people.
3 – Europe makes its citizens of Islamic origin, attain similar attitudes as those from a Western background. Can fascist re-education work?
The status quo is unsustainable. Things will change. There are no nice solutions. Whatever happens, people will fight and the innocent will suffer.
Hmm. Well, I read it, and I see what you mean, although it does still seem to be saying that God is our master originally, even if he is nice enough to accept us as a child, should we ask him to. Besides, in most cultures, a father is basically a child’s master anyway. All academic though, really, since I don’t believe any of it!
I think islam will lose because the materialism of western culture will ‘convert’ their children, and their children’s children who are raised and living here. The kids of muslims, raised in western societies, will get used to freedom, property, rule of law, hygiene, being exposed to a variety of ideas, having things!: and they will eventually raise their children in more freedom than THEY had, etc, etc, unto the tenth generation.
All this time christian cultures ran down materialism, and now, I think materialism will protect them.