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]
|
Under Islam independent thought is intolerable The story of Waleed Hasayin, a Palestinian West Bank atheist blogger, is indicative of the nightmare that is inevitable in any system where state, society and religion are completely intertwined.
[Muslims] believe anyone who leaves Islam is an agent or a spy for a Western State, namely the Jewish State.
The mere existence of an outspoken atheist is intolerable in such an environment… but the thing about tolerance is it is only appropriate when it is reciprocated and Islam does not tolerate views that deny their God’s existence, so why should any non-Muslim tolerate Islam? Tolerance for intolerance is cowardice, not to mention suicidal.
|
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.
|
Say it ain’t so!
Very few religions tolerate views that deny their God’s existence, Islam is just rather more direct in expressing its intolerance.
Paul, the suitable term is ‘violent’, rather than ‘direct’, with violence being “embedded” in the actual dogma.
Tolerate means not taking forcible action to prevent something you do not yourself agree with… I have no problem with religions arguing against people who deny the existence of their Gods, the problem is when they use force to prevent people from denying the existence of their Gods.
Tolerance does not mean acceptance or respect, it just means you agree to allow someone to hold and express a differing opinion without throwing rocks at therm… and an atheist has no right to demand acceptance or respect from any religion.. or visa versa… just that they be allowed to disagree.
But if that agreement is not forthcoming because that religion (or indeed lack of religion) is also a political ideology that demands adherence to certain antithetical notion (such as the existence or non-existence of Gods), well why tolerate adherents of an ideology that will not tolerate you and your ideology?
In view of PaulH’s generalised comment.
Jesus did not threaten anyone that He would kill them if they did not accept Him as God.
In fact He rather (gently) pushed them back a bit so they were sure that made up their own minds based on their own findings.
People have come along subsequent to Him and done vicious stuff while claiming to be on ‘His side’ but I am afraid they have taken a temporal view of the eternal, or were just plain political (temporal) in the first place.
(Which is as you say in your post, Perry, mixing the religion and the politic.)
My view is that God does not actually need people to hack other people to death on His behalf.
If He wanted to He could do it very easily Himself. In fact the only reason we do not disintegrate into the stuff that pre-dated atoms is, in my opinion, because He holds it together.
However. Yes.
To be accepting of rank intolerance can only, really, be seen as weakness. Dishonesty.
But that, it seems, is the way we deal with things until it gets serious and personal.
Perhaps we are getting there?
The wheels seem to be coming off in different ways in different parts of the world and the accommodation of hostility against it that Israel is expected to accept is plain insanity.
Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post is good. (Most Israeli media is the usual left/collectivist stuff, hey, Alisa?)
This is her latest: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=195474
I agree with almost everything you say, Perry. And as an atheist that’s the practical outcome I advocate for. But for most religions that view is incorrect, within the boundaries of that religion. For example, and without wishing to pick on Christianity, mainstream Christian thinking says that I’ll burn in hell fire for all eternity, and that while it might be regrettable it’s also exactly what I deserve. Now from my point of view (not believing in heaven) that’s indistinguishable from the tolerance you advocate, but it’s not tolerance; it’s just tolerance for now.
PaulH: as atheists/agnostics/sane individuals, can we please keep the argument within the limits of this wold?
JohnB: yes and yes.
Seen this?
http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnplayer.swf?aid=17933
Islam is the world’s most intolerant supremacist religion, and as the world shrinks it’s getting more and more out of place.
Keep up on the daily global news of the Islamic threat to the world free at:
http://tinyurl.com/islamwatch
Sadly the West (including Britain) is pushing regulations and “policies” that also ban attacks on Islam – as “racism” (yes I know Muslims are not a race – but tell that to Mrs Brown) or as violation of “diversity” (“diversity” does not allow diversity of opinion) and so on.
Even in the United States efforts to convert Muslims (by bill boards, radio ads and so on) get a more and more hostile response – not just from Islamists, but from the government and the whole “ruling class” (the education system, the “mainstream media” and, yes, many business corporations also).
We must not be beastly to the Muslims – and arguing that another religion (or athiesm) is better than Islam is judged as being beastly.
Even Bill Maher (the main leftist athiest on American television) does not have full freedom of speech any more.
Calling ordinary people “dogs” (supposedly not capable of rational thought – animals, dogs …..) for not supporting his vision of ever bigger government was O.K. as far as the elite were concerned (they just wish he had not let the ordinary people know of the hatred and contempt the elite have for them).
However, when Bill Maher expressed concern at a report that the most popular boys name in England was “Muhammed” (if one includes all the versions of this name) the reaction of the elite was very different – how dear Maher make an implied attack on Islam…….
The West seems to be committed to a path of suicide.
“Only the elite Paul”.
And the leftist elite control almost all schools and universities. While that remains true the West (including the United States) is in deadly danger.
But as you and I believe there is only ‘now’, who cares? 🙂
I don’t really see that this is qualitatively any different to Katharine Birbalsingh’s recent experience, or indeed the exprience of anyone leaving a particular groupthink.
It only matters if the gropupthink can get you arrested Ian and we have less of those here than in the West Bank, at least at the moment
“. . . so why should any non-Muslim tolerate Islam? Tolerance for intolerance is cowardice, not to mention suicidal.”
I agree with you, Perry, but do you really agree? Follow the logic to its conclusion; what is your policy recommendation?
Actually it matters quite a lot if it can destroy your career.
Anyway, the point I was making was that it is the same mechanism in operation. It’s not unique to mueslis.
Yeah it matters but it is a social issue, not a criminal one. I am very much in favour of freedom of association and if you make people dislike you due to your opinions, well there may be consequences when people disassociate from you… too bad… as long as they aren’t throwing rocks or calling the Boys in Blue.
So no they are not the same thing at all. The issue is not Waleed Hasayin being shunned or fired for being an atheist, it is him being arrested. Very big difference.
Policy meaning government policy? Well if want to put me in charge and let me start making policy… after dismantling the welfare state completely, reintroducing Peelian policing, getting the state out of the education business, abolishing the Bank of England and FSA…I would abolish all ‘discrimination’ legislation and let civil society defend itself from intolerant alien Islam and let the resulting resurgent natural order of things take its course.
Your quote just says that if you leave mueslism, people will think you’re an agent for the Other Side, which is what happened to Ms. Birbalsingh.
And I don’t, as another matter, entirely agree either with this simplistic “if it’s not the State, it doesn’t matter” attitude that tends to crop up in Libertarianism. Non-state collective ostracisation/coercion can have very serious effects on peoples lives. It’s a generalised human mechanism, and one we should be aware of. When we glibly say “in the absence of a State, spontaneous social mechanisms will arise” we should keep in mind that those mechanisms can be extremely unpleasant. Which is why I remain a Common Law kinda guy.
Well of course it can – is life supposed to always be pleasant? You need to know how to smile and shake hands, to say the right thing at the right time and to shut up when needs to, and even to kiss a posterior once in a while – in short, you need to know how to get along with other people. If you don’t, no one owes you anything, including a job, let alone a “career”. Is the Common Law supposed to change that? I doubt it, and I hope it doesn’t. And you are the one fixated on the State, while by ‘state’ one should simply understand ‘monopolized violence’. So can we please move on to the next fixation – can’t wait to see what that might be.
“Well of course they can”.
So who have the authors of all the above comments being voting for over the last ten years? About 97% will have voted for one of the pro-mass immigration parties: Labour, Tory or Lib Dem. You’ve got what you voted for dummies. Personally I’m in the BNP. When your great granddaughters are being stoned for adultery in fifty years time, don’t blame me.
You might be able to explain this to my fat Yank self, then:
Are there any important differences between the BNP and Labour?
Posted by PaulH at November 16, 2010 01:27 PM
Too funny that comment. There’s an episode of Seinfeld with a running gag in which Elaine complains about the very same thing. I never expected to see/hear Elaine’s words delivered seriously.
Paul H writes, “Very few religions tolerate views that deny their God’s existence.”
Not so. In the world today pretty much every religion except Islam tolerates views denying their God’s existence. I can’t off hand think of any non-Islamic country that legally punishes atheism. The most you can say is that there is sometimes social pressure, or ways in which religion is intertwined with the state (e.g. to do with marriage ceremonies and so on) so as to make public atheism awkward.
Paul H also writes, “mainstream Christian thinking says that I’ll burn in hell fire for all eternity”.
No, it doesn’t.
It is not a bug, it is a feature. Unpleasant social mechanisms are sometimes exactly what is needed. Trying to use law to achieved ‘niceness’ is part of the problem not part of the solution.
Like a great many people here I voted for none-of-the-above and that includes statist jackanapes like the BNP.
The problem is not immigration… it is immigration + welfare state + legislation that actively outlaws social processes that would strongly demotivate people unwilling to integrate from moving here.
I think the terror of having one’s throat slit with a ragged kitchen knife is not in the same league as social ostracism.
That pressure is obvious in South Park backing off offending Islam but whooping it up when doing the same to other beliefs.
Stark naked fear tends to rip the joy out of things.
Ian B, you write, ” Non-state collective ostracisation/coercion can have very serious effects on peoples lives. It’s a generalised human mechanism”
I agree that non-state collective ostracism and coercion can be used in evil ways. (Well, actually, I’d separate out the ostracism from the coercion and make different arguments about each, but I’m trying to keep vaguely on topic.) But at least this type of punishment, because of its generalised nature, is (a) far less prone to being “hijacked” by determined special interest groups – which has repeatedly happened to the law.
I did have a (b) there, but I’ve forgotten it.
“But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me”
Luke Ch. 19 Vs. 27
“The Son of man will send out his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.
Matthew Ch. 13 Vs. 41-42
A question I’ve asked on several blogs, generally to a well-bred horrified silence: “How can a religion whose name means ‘submission’ view freedom as anything but an occasion of sin?”
Well Stonyground, good thing the Christian bible is not the law of the land then, eh?
Stonyground.
Those were parables concerning hypocrites and hypocritical judgementalism. Not instructions!
They were in 3rd person, as well.
Not to say that in the eternal there may not be what one might consider extreme circumstances, but, hey this is the Person who built the bridge and told us that He wants mercy rather than sacrifice.
Who said not to judge.
Whose prayer indicates that we will be forgiven as we forgive those who cause us grief.
.
“I would abolish all ‘discrimination’ legislation and let civil society defend itself from intolerant alien Islam and let the resulting resurgent natural order of things take its course.”
Insufficient, Perry. Social ostracism vs physical violence and terror? You know which one will win. The correct answer is prohibition. Islam isn’t a religion, it’s a contagion to be eradicated.
Who said that civil society has to confine itself to ostracism?
No Laird, you can’t ban nuthin, and still be free.
Except behaviour.
All one has to ban is the aggression, and remove the false protections that that aggression enjoys.
Stonyground,
Luke 19:27. Parable of the talents, i.e. a fictional story. Whole chapter here for reference.
Matthew 13:41-42. Refers to generalised evildoers, not atheists. And what John B said.
To avoid derailing the comments, that’s my last on that issue. Might comment further on Islam, tolerance and coercion later but have to go now.
I’ll quote Maggie T. here – don’t go wobbly in the face of the soi disant “elites” love affair with Islam Let me assure you that these folks are delusional and useless. As an academic I know the type well. Originality and innovation do not exist in the universe they inhabit but plagiarism does – big timr.! I know it’s difficult to pity such obnoxious types but they are pitiable and definitely not to be feared because they produce nothing – nothing at all. For them the only reality is the Marxist Leninist mush they absorbed way back when in Poli Sci 101.
Not at all because the moment someone resorts to physical violence and terror you throw the entire power of the state at them.
It is not an ‘either/or but not both’ thing.
The culture war against intolerant Islam is the precondition to any meaningful confrontation and it is actually not hard to win… as soon as you stop the useful idiots within our own state prevent it from even being fought.
The sad, sad truth is that Islam is actually not a religion. That is clear, and certainly by this century if not about five or six ago, to any sharp child of about, oh, six (and I didn’t choose that age for any other subtextual reasons either.)
The obverse of that same coin is that most, nay – nearly all “Muslims” are perfectly decent and honourable people who would have no problem integrating fully into the llives of whatever country it pleased them to go to, if they were not traduced and used by “Political Enemy-Classes” in the West as stalking-horses and patsies for the progressive introduction of increased State Repression.
Muslims ought to investigate the links between some of their “Deeply Respected Scholars” (and that phantasmal thing called “Al-Quaeda”, which probably does not really exist) and specifically people in the West such as socialist political parties and “left wing think tanks”. These outfits are not the friends, ultimately, of ordinary Muslims. I have no evidence whatever for the sort of collusions that I know will turn up, but it’s plain to me as a Lancashire bumpkin that they will be found.
None of this will be news to people who read Samizdata, for I have been saying versions of it for years. But in-droppers might take note.
Paul H:
“… as an atheist (…) mainstream Christian thinking says that I’ll burn in hell fire for all eternity, and that while it might be regrettable it’s also exactly what I deserve….”
You can be confident and unafraid, Paul. There is no moral depravation in not believing in God, and as far as I know atheists are not excluded of redemption by any Biblical text.
Jesus entered willingly into a rigged political trial, and let himself be crucified to show that such acts as old as the mountains, are odious to him and not a man or woman deserves them.
It is in that belief, that no one is beyond the redeeming virtue of Christ. His penalty -a heinous death on charges brought by the most pious of his countrymen- alone was voluntarily assumed by Christ and, in paying it, He washed away our sins, found us when we had been lost by the fault of the one Adam, and restored us to our former supernatural state and destination.
It would be a crude conception indeed to suppose that the guilt or culpability of men passed from the consciences of other men to Christ. On the contrary, He let himself be a subject of it all to prove it wrong.
The more I age, the more I think that Christ is a compelling example, and that it is a beautiful idea to believe that would any atheist have to face the tyranny of religion, Christ would stand up before the crowds, right next to him.
Stonyground, you have named yourself well. Good words will fall uselessly onto you, but i feel compelled to try.
Jesus never tells his followers to exact these punishments themselves, does he? Also, Jesus seems to have shared the general Jewish beliefs of the day, which, as far as we can tell. are like modern Jewish beliefs. Those Jews who believe in an afterlife have a concept like purgatory, where ALL people will be purged of their sins, and then ALL will share in the feast of the afterlife! (Buy a Talmud sometime- you’ll be amazed!)
Mohammed, however, told his followers to carry out punishment themselves, and he engaged in child marriages, and allowed and justified slavery- and did plenty of other things that libertarians can only reject. Mohammed had no concept of the Golden Rule, about treating others as you want them to treat you, which is another reason Islam is such a violent religion- but most libertarians I know support the rule, or find it compatible with their political and social beliefs.
And Jesus also said that God would judge you by how you treated others- remember the parable of the good samaritan?
Paul H writes the weird sentence: “And as an atheist that’s the practical outcome I advocate for. But for most religions that view is incorrect, within the boundaries of that religion.”
Never mind his grammar, as it is a symptom of a murky thought process, but he talks of “most religions”. Which religions? Hinduism? Buddhism? Tao-ism? Or is he referring to Christianity and islam as “most religions”?
Perry, you do realise that Islam itself is a non-state coercive system?
No! Really? Next you are going to be saying the Mafia and IRA and Cali Cartel are non-state coercive systems! Mein Gott!
Good thing I’m not an anarchist, eh?
You’re one of those folks who want everybody to make up their own arbitrary laws and enforce them aren’t you? In what way is that not anarchism? What job is the State doing in your ‘topia, Perry?
There is one further point to David’s comment that there are lots of lovely Muslim folk around who just want to live in peace. I agree. I have a tremendous respect (and actually love) towards the mindset and awareness and cultural texture (the word ‘ambience’ severely overworked!) that I have found in some Islamic and Islamic-influenced societies.
However.
It might be a good idea if some of these moderates expressed their distaste of violence and barbarism a bit more forcefully, or at all, without blaming the West as a precondition.
Ignacio, I would have to disagree with your symbolism versus reality take on things but this is not the place!
Hey. This is another little blast from the past. Unfortunately things have severely deteriorated since 30+ years ago:
Dolphins leap in the water. The ferry thunders through the strait. His watch is stolen. The early-year turbulence rocks and thrusts the boat. Shoreline recedes and shoreline approaches. To those on the beach the boat turns and leans, esoterically isolated against the skyline.
The DC3 circles and a swathe of luxurious sand extends to the horizon gleaming gold against the sea blue awash with white.
Hard customs men – with every case, packet, basket laid out on low counters for inspection. Hair is short. Tourist? – Through.
The reek of mint and bodies attuned to life. Perfume punctuated with uncertainty.
The airport is easier.
March is a mad month in Tangier – The celebration of the King. Wailing pipes set to intoxication of complex, compelled drumming. Music to be copied. Attempted in electronic sound studios and sadly lost – the soul is empty.
Mad rhythms and music. Calls to eternity. Aware. Realisation of vast sadness – great, grief-stricken acceptance – reality of the eternal. Knowledge of the beyond stated in echoes.
No wonder they hate us and rip us off at every opportunity. We are the casual rich – out of touch – almost unhygienic. Life and death pass by in untruth.
“Perry, you do realise that Islam itself is a non-state coercive system?”
Perry can answer for himself, but IanB, don’t forget that as far as Islam is concerned, there is no distinction between the spiritual and temporal world; that makes it quite different from Christianity (“Render unto Ceasar” etc). Islam, whenever it gains ground in a particular country, makes damn bloody sure that it is the state system, with brass knobs on.
The issue about social ostracism, for me, is that ostracism is not coercion, although it can and often is very unpleasant and equates to a form of pressure that is very hard to live with. For example, imagine the situation of young Muslim girls who go out on dates with non-Muslim guys and who, as a result, are disowned by their parents. And I know a lot of people who get married in churches so as not to offend their parents rather than through any sort of serious conviction or love for traditions of their spouse, etc. (Full disclosure, I was married in a Catholic ceremony, but am not a Catholic myself, as I made clear to the priest at the time, and did not take Mass).
Johnathan, that’s my point. Islam isn’t a “State” but as a, what shall we call it, “hegemonic power system”, it is much the same. It has rules, it has coercive power, it has hegemony, who gives a shit if it doesn’t have the words “ministry of…” in front of it?
Social ostracism is of course coercion. In most societies it is impossible to function without the permission of your fellows. If nobody will rent you a room, or sell you basic goods; if they make you an unperson, you will die. That indeed is what AnCaps often state they will rely on to enforce their private sector coercion; if you don’t play ball you will be left to starve in the cold.
We are used to social coercion in this country that stops short of violence, and as libertairans we often have this profoundly naive presumption that that is some kind of human norm. Even so in the West it often has not stopped there; think of girls confined to Magdalen laundries for instance as a well known example. In most cultures, in most of history, social coercion extends organically into violence, beatings and murder. You don’t need to be a state to have a pogrom.
Even when things don’t go that far, mere social ostracism is sufficient to ruin a person. To say it is not coercion is ridiculous. When a libertarian gets on a high horse and says “Katharine Birbalsingh doesn’t have a “right” to a career” as if that addresses the issue, I hang my head and weep.
Yep, many years ago the fact that reality just wouldn’t bend to my wishes made me weep too. Loudly. Most of us grow out of it, though. Katharine Birbalsingh indeed doesn’t have a right to anything which is not granted by others. If you think that she ought to have a career (as do I and seemingly quite a few others), then go ahead and give her one, hopefully with the help of those like-minded others.
Actually you do, at least by the original definition of the word. Those darn semantics again.
I iz constitutionalist. Go stand in the corner and argue with yourself.
Alisa, you’re a clever woman. I can’t figure out why so often you deliberately switch your brain off.
The whole point of political activism and argument is the attempt to “bend reality to your wishes”. It is the attempt to change other people.
I take it if you’d been there when somebody was being dragged off to the gulag, you’d have come out with “oh, reality sucks doesn’t it, oh boo hoo hoo lolz” at them.
And Perry, I have no idea what point you’re making any more. I strongly suspect you don’t either.
Then you are not trying very hard and as you are just blindly throwing shit and claiming people getting thrown into some Palestinian shit hole jail for expressing atheist views was much the same as getting fired for expressing Tory views, your comment did not really warrant much of a reply.
You said I was a supporter of polycentric national law, I told you I was in fact a constitutionalist when it came to national law. Not so hard to understand.
So previous comments you’ve made supporting polycentric law should now be disregarded? You used to want that but now you don’t?
As to your first paragraph, I said no such thing. I explicitly explained that I was referring to the quote in your initial post; that anyone who leaves Islam is considered an enemy, and stated that that ingroup/outgroup mechanism is commonplace.
Also, I appreciate that it is appealing when faced with something like Islam to construct a narrative that it is some kind of special evil, qualitatively unique and different to all other things; and then to treat anyone who suggests that it may not be so special as a traitor to one’s own side, a relativist and subversive who is, you know “not on our team” wink wink, which is ironically the same thing again, isn’t it?
Throwing somebody in jail for their beliefs is indeed worse than firing somebody for their beliefs. It is of the same quality, though. Considering how many people have been, and are currently, on trial here in enlightened Christendom for expressing counter-hegemonic beliefs (generally regarding Islam funnily enough) we need to be aware of the generalities of such hegemonic enforcement systems rather than the specifics. The activist teacher who enforces them by “social” means may well become an MP who votes to enforce them by law.
Polycentric law is a fact to the extent that stock markets have their ‘laws’, clubs and associations have their ‘laws’ and companies have their ‘laws’… this is what we call ‘civil society’.
But laws against throwing rocks or forcible cliterodectomy are not amenable to such ‘polycentric’ orders, hence I am a constitutionalist when it comes to the legitimate role of state and your assumptions about what I think are wrong…
…which is precisely why I am a constitutionalist: in the American “Congress shall make no law…” sense rather than the meaningless English sense of the term, to prevent MPs from voting whatever they want into law by placing whole areas of life outside politics.
Does no one else feel that the current problems with Islam, sorry about the understatement, result from the panic of a sub section of mullahs. This panic being caused, consciously or unconsciously by the vast inroads of all the good, bad and indifferent western ideas invading the culture of their young people. A good thing in the main from my perspective, but for them a catastrophe. Time will resolve their problems. How the west reacts will shorten or lengthen the time taken for Islam to evolve into a rational religion. I think the parable of the sun and wind and the cloaked traveller pertains.
If we are so smart, think, not what Islamists should do, but what we can do, to arrive at enlightenment for Islamists.
Sure but I prefer ‘tolerable’ rather than ‘rational’ when describing religions.
In practical terms the main thing is that radical Islam is being allowed to drag western civilisation back in to the Middle Ages.
If this does not happen it will be because of a few courageous folk such as Tea Partiers and Wilders and the like, who probably have some beliefs one would find unacceptable.
As things stand at the moment, they do not look good.
It could also be that radical Islam is being allowed to do this so that measures such as body scanners and other forms of total invasion of privacy can be justified.
All part of shoeing in the Brave New World, and then some?
1) The West ended up the way it is because of the Reformation. However, it wasn’t the creation of Protestantism per se that did it, it was the bloodshed. We reached a point after the 30 Years War where everyone had had enough of killing for God, and decided to stop, thus inventing “religious freedom”. Sort of like everyone had had enough of fighting the bloody Germans time and again in 1945.
2) The Muzzies currently have their Protestantism. It’s called Islamism. As with ours, the result is a lot of bloodshed. Like ours, it is committed to a return to devout “pure” religious values in their faith.
3) Unlike ours, the source of corruption is identified as external rather than internal. The Protestants believed that the Catholic Church had been corrupted by itself; the Islamists believe that Islam is corrupted by external Western cultural values.
4) They are correct. Western cultural values are the gravest imaginable threat to Islam. Western society, even in its current degraded form, is grossly more enjoyable than Islamic society. It is in the long term impossible for Islamic cultural values to prevail while the West exists.
5) This is particularly true of Israel, since it represents an outpost of Westernism in the Muslim heartland. The eradication of Israel is thus essential to the survival of Islam.
6) It logically follows that for Islam to survive in anything other than a weak form, it must destroy the source of its corruption which is, indeed, the West.
7) Since the source of the threat to Islam is exogenous, it is unlikely that a post-Reformation fatigue will set in in the Islamic world in the short term. Unlike Reformation Europe, there is no advantage to devout Muslims laying down their arms; Europeans realised “if we carry on like this, we will destroy ourselves” whereas an Islamist will think “if we carry on like this, we will destroy them“.
8)While the West survives, Islam is on a knife edge. It requires every effort of force to maintain it, since it is constantly under assault by the mere existence of a better alternative outside the Middle East, or outside the Muslim enclaves in the West. It thus requires constant violence and threat of violence for maintenance or it will wither away as young muslims turn to the pleasures of pop music and nice clothes and normal sexual relationships etc.
9) The obvious logical policy for the West- other than whatever military actions may be appropriate- is one of constant cultural aggression. The more corrosive (© Perry de Havilland) western culture is, the faster Islam will collapse. We cannot wait for a Muslim Peace Of Westphalia because for reasons stated above it will not happen in any acceptable timescale. The correct approach is cultural invasion and westernisation of Islam.
10) The Muslim enclaves are a particular problem in European nations. Immigration controls must urgently be emplaced, along with removal of welfare rights for immigrants, to prevent them growing further. It would almost certainly be useful, if not particularly liberal, to impose westernist indoctrination of young muslims via the State school system, legally prevent the opening of further mosques and prayer rooms, and compulsory medical checks of muslim women and, particularly, girls. Muslim community organisers should be ruthlessly weeded out and expelled from Europe. Councils should be banned from any muslim appeasement (e.g. muslim swimming sessions at municipal baths). Anti-semitic, islamic gang rapes and homophobic attacks should be ruthlessly prosecuted. Islam should be tolerated, but that is all.
11) However, it must be remembered that if the middle eastern heartland of Islam succumbs to westernism, the enclaves will wither and die. All that will be required to achieve this is aggressive promotion of western culture.
12) All that is required to achieve that is a revival of pride in Western values.
13) We thus see that the solution to our problem is the Fifth Column in the West of Proggressives/Cultural Marxists/Asshats/Whatever who are opposed to Western Culture. The solution to the problem of Islam is the same solution that we seek to the other problems facing our society. We must become a society which is proud- to quote myself- of beer, shagging and gay hobbit porn. While we remain ashamed due to our own puritan hegemony, we do not have the moral fibre to aggressively market our own society, and thus to wear down Islam by poisoning it at its cultural roots.
14) The ultimate answer then to both questions- “how do we defeat them?” and “how do we survive ourselves?” is the same. If we defeat the philosophy of puritan post-marxism in our society, it will again become ideologically strong and proud of itself, and unbeatable. If we continue to pursue that philosophy, we are doomed due to both internal decay and external aggression. Islam has power now because it is a shark that smells blood in the water. It cannot be defeated on the battlefield, but it can be defeated easily in the cultural arena.
But that depends on us recognising and using the weapons we have.
Ian B.:
Given that by reality I obviously mean basic human nature (and indeed nature in general), are you still sure about that quote?
Indeed I do. Human nature is very plastic, within bounds. It has some “constants”. Self interest is one. The trick is manipulating how people manifest that self interest. You can’t stop people acting in their own self interest. But you can change what they think is in their own self interest. That’s how the socialists won. It’s the only way we will win, also.
Ian, it all made perfect sense, until you got to the ‘beer, shagging and gay hobbit porn’ part. Although a (moderate) fan of the first two, I seriously doubt that these constitute the essence of the Western culture. I am also fairly sure that the some-time Progressive opposition to these is not the essence of Progressivism, but a mere (unfortunate) side-effect.
As to your answer to my question: thank you, it explains a lot.
Well I think they are. That’s why I consider myself a libertine rather than a libertarian, Alisa.
Seriously, the point is it’s personal freedoms. The corruption against which the Islamists are fighting largely comes down to a fear that their daughters will wear bikinis on the beach. Or even go to the beach at all.
As I’ve said before, in my view Progressivism is broadly speaking secularised Puritanism. The clearest demonstration is Greenism, which is an overtly puritan cult. Puritan feminism (the “radical” variety) is a philosophy entirely based on sexual suppression. Progressives are openly diet puritans, running constant campaigns against beer, tasty food, etc. It’s the heart of the movement, not a side effect, IMV.
Wrong. Their real fear is that they will lose general control of their daughters (and through them of everyone else). Sex and food are just the most overt and common areas where this craving for control expresses itself, but it is by no means restricted to those areas. The same goes for Progressivism. Indeed, this is the common fundamental of both Islam and Progressivism, this is why they are such close allies, and this is what makes them diametrically opposed to those parts of the Western culture where control over individuals is largely left to themselves.
Hmm, I think we’re in chicken and egg territory Alisa. The question is why they want control. It can be for political reasons or to amass wealth. But I think it might be down to social structure. When you have an extended family/tribal social model, control of female sexuality becomes paramount. Your daughters and who they marry decides who is going to be bound into your family, and bring with them all manner of personal responsibilities and weaken or strengthen the extended family unit.
Yes, I’m speculating here.
The western model (particularly far western Europe) is more nuclear small families weakly bound; as you head south east you get into the realm of strongly bound extended families- the “tribal family”. Tribal families exhibit very strong reciprocal responsibility bindings, so you now care a very great deal about who you are bound to. So, controlling the women who bind you to other men by those responsibilities becomes a vital matter. So, you need a lot of control. You need to bind the women inside the family and even home by closeting.
In the weak western model, it doesn’t matter so much. If you don’t like your son in law, you can just ignore the asshat. So you can afford for your females to have more freedom; plus, with smaller families the women need to associate much more outside the family unit. And so on.
So I think the Islamic obsession with controlling women is an artifact of the social system, and the diffferences probably trace back to different agricultural/economic patterns in the past.
The key problem with the western model is that small families require stronger social structures with non-relatives, and if that gets out of hand it turns into socialism and families fragmenting altogether. So there may be a “sweet spot” for family structure. It may also be why the nuclear family protestant west invented capitalism; more interaction with non-relatives requiring stable mutual trade systems compared to a culture of “favours” between relatives in tribal-family cultures.
Just speculating here.
Well, these speculations certainly sound like educated ones. Still, you are discussing the roots of the desire to control, which is a very interesting subject in and of itself, but is largely irrelevant in the modern, practical context. In other words, what do we do abut it now? Towards that end, your 12 points were well made (with some caveats, but still well made). As I said before, no. 13 is where the problem is.
Perry, my view, as an agnostic, is that a rational religion must tolerate other views. For example Jainism, as I understand it, is a world leader in toleration. But the human religious instinct provides more illuminating characteristics than mere toleration.
Ian. I get the feeling you have decided what the problem is and then tend to fit your solutions around that.
The protestantism you refer to, insofar as it had any effect in the temporal world, was just more controllism at work and has nothing to do with what Jesus lived and died for. Very false flag.
My thinking is that the Middle Easterner is often a more subtle person than I think your average Westerner was, and probably is and has a more realistic approach. So I don’t think your beer and gross routines will actually work.
Further. Your enemy, while he can be barbaric he, is not a Barbarian as in a northern European sense.
I agree with much that you say. But I do not think militant Islam would have the success it has if it were not protected by indulgence by westerners.
One does not have to break wind in its face to defeat its aggression.
All that would be necessary is to stop being stupid, unrealistic and untrue.
If I fire someone for his beliefs, he can go find other work.
And if I can’t fire someone for his beliefs, then does that mean I must hire someone who believes that God has commanded him to beat black people?[1] In the private sector, what if he claims that his religion requires him to steal office supplies or to refuse to serve unaccompanied female customers? Do I have to wait for him to act on his beliefs or can I choose to prevent this problem from happening on company time by dumping him as soon as I have reason to anticipate a problem.
If I lock him up, then he can’t walk out the door by claiming that he subscribes to some other philosophy of jail and will choose to go to a different one. Market forces aren’t so relevant here.
There is a remedy.
It’s called eliminating the power of the state to criminalize beliefs and expression of belief.
And that may be then, but this is now. I’m unclear as to what you’re saying here.
Define “westernist.”
Sunfish, on your first point I was pointing out that a teacher fired for being in a certain political party is caused by the same mindset as the quote in Perry’s original post- ingroup/outgroup thing. And that this is a general problem. I was merely pointing out that the problem is not unique to Muzzies.
As to my point (10), I stated that what followed was not liberal. These are statist suggestions that I made. When you’re at war, it gets very statist very fast. We aren’t quite at war with Islam, but we’re not far off it are we?
It largely depends how urgent the de-islamification process is. If you’re willing to hang around longer, ignore the point 10 suggestions. They’d simply speed it up.
The point here is that my post was not a discussion of how to ensure liberal religious freedom. It took as an assumption that Islam needs to be effectively destroyed, and discussed how one might go about that. I would feel no more guilt at wiping Islam from the face of the Earth as an ideology than doing the same with communism or nazism. The whole post was a discussion of how that might be achieved practically, rather than a discussion of a libertarian ideal, which has little to offer in a situation like this, because libertarianism is a socio-political system which libertarians would prefer to live in, and doesn’t really have any solutions to the presence of large proportions of non-libertarians, particularly if they’re flaming psychopathic nutters.
Fine, you weren’t trying to advance liberty in Point #10. That was clear the first time.
So, what medical examinations were you planning to compel?
Sorry, forgot the medical checks thing. The primary purpose is to catch anybody mutilating their daughters. You’d probably want a new offence of “religious mutilation” or something like that, with a ridiculously heavy punishment attached. There’d be a bit of an awkward side effect in sweeping up Jews as well in that, but it’s really time they gave up on their ritual mutilations too, so really it’s a win-win situation in that regard.
So you’d inflict sexual assault on huge swaths of people to ensure that they haven’t been assaulted.
Slick. Real slick. If that’s the price of winning the ‘war,’ then what the hell’s the point?
(That a cop and a pornographer are having this argument on teh interwebz doesn’t shock me. Who’s taking which side is making me laugh my ass off.)
“Sexual assault”? You count a nurse giving somebody a quick visual checkup as sexual assault? Really?
Jeez. Americans.
You call forced government-mandated stripping of Muslim women, because they’re Muslim women, anything else?
You call forced government-mandated stripping of Muslim women, because they’re Muslim women, anything else?
That’s some TSA airport-screener crap, right there.
“Europe is running adrift,” remarked Oskar Freysinger, leader of the Swiss People’s Party, in a recent lecture to the Flemish Parliament, “not because of fanatics who occupy the land, but because of cowards who let them do it.”
Taken from article:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-west-and-the-guest/?singlepage=true
I heard you the first time…
I think the argument here goes that since kids can’t look after themselves, there’s bound to be some kind of state involvement there. Sorry.
Anyway, I don’t see there’s any “assault” here any more than when I was at school and the nit lady came round to check our hair for nits. Is it the taking clothes off thing? Is that the problem you’re having with it?
How is this different from the pedophile scare you keep going off about? Apart from, this time you’re all set to create a targeted victim pool for said pedophiles?
And my problem with it is the whole notion of forcing medical exams on people who don’t want them, because you have a case of the ass with their religion. Clothing or not is secondary to that.
Well, this is predicated on the presumption that child genital mutilation is an actuality rather than a moral panic, yes. But so far as I can see, the only way to avoid your “targetted victim pool” is to ban paediatric medicine. I mean, it’s certainly possible that kiddie fiddlers will qualify as paediatricians or paediatric nurses, but this programme neither raises nor lowers that threat though it would give them more kids to look at I guess.
I had lots of medical things done to me when I was a kid, a large proportion of which were distressing things involving my bowels, and I can’t remember wanting any of them. Other people did; my parents, or doctors telling my parents what I needed. And so on. Kids don’t get to make many choices, largely because they aren’t considered competent to do so.
So what you’re really complaining about is “forcing medial exams” on people whose parents don’t want them, and that’s a different thing I think. Caring parents are unlikely to have any real objection to free medical checks intended purely to ensure that their child is intact. Parents who object because the sharpened-tin-can-lid-lady has visited… well really, I wish them nothing but suffering.
Fundamentally, children remain a problem in libertarianism. Not fit to self-rule, but not their parents’ property. What status do they get? Imagine the an-cap extreme where everything is private. Who will insure children against their parents? Malign parents won’t. Do we thus say it’s okay for parents to assault or murder their children? Difficult problem.
So I guess my position here where there’s no clear libertarian solution to a known significant problem is to be statist and pro-active. You could alternatively just pass the law and hope girls who have been mutilated beyond redemption by parental psychopaths will come forward and prosecute their parents, but knowing the social pressures involved, and considering by then it’s too late, that’s a less useful approach.
Laird, I agree with your post far above. I have long said that islam should be outlawed as a toxic enemy of freedom of thought, speech and belief. In other words, it is a noose around the neck of progress and civilisation.
As I understand it, if someone blasphemes against Mohammad, or against Allah, then they have committed a crime against God, and must be made to pay. Out come the knives or the stones.
What I don’t understand is that if Allah is the offended party, and he is omnipotent, why does he need any help? Why can’t he deal with the problem in the old-fashioned way, like with the ground opening up, or a bolt of lightning?
O.K. Alisa, just to please you- it ain’t so! There, I’ve said it. Happy now?
As for Allah smiting sinners, in the Bible (Deuteronomy Ch13, i think) Jehovah says he’ll allow heretics to spring up and spout Pagan notions, so He can see what is in the hearts of His people- if they smite the sinners themselves, then they are being good. If not, they might be sympathetic to the pagan heresies, and not be worth calling His people. so everything is a test! I imagine muslims would reason similarly, if asked.
Nowhere in the New Testament is there any instruction or suggestion to do any violence to anyone, including if they “insult” God.
It can be a good idea to advise them that they are putting themselves in jeopardy.
But that’s about it.
Ian B,
The problem is an awful lot of FGM is done “back home”. It’s tricky from a legal position. Let’s say you make it illegal to send a kid abroad to get it done or knowing it would be done then the medic informs the cops, the cops drag the parents in and the parents say “We didn’t know what was going to happen to little Aisha when we sent to top stay with granny over the hols we’re just as shocked an appalled as you.” What do you then do. Issue an internal arrest warrant for “The old “wise” woman second mud brick structure on the left, Mogadishu”. That simply won’t work.
The there is the EU. I don’t think it’s illegal in all EU countries. Just the same way the abortion law varies but you can’t stop someone travelling within the EU – or it’s very hard.
So OK, enforce the law as and when and it is conceivably attempted murder and do it properly. I don’t think anyone in the UK has been done for it despite it specifically being on the books for quite some time.
The real underlying problem is the cultural idea that the kid can’t get married without mutilated genitals. That of course seems demented to us but it’s their culture and that has to change. The real underlying problem with doing that is the self-ghettoisation of some of our immigrant communities. They really do circle the wagons. Hence honour killings and the like. FGM is part of that. Badges of faith and custom become very important.
Might I make a curious and bleakly ironic departure here. about 1930 a senior group of German Rabbis perceived a threat to the German Jewish community. They wrote an open letter about it. It was not NAZIs they were worried about but assimilation and the destruction of a specific Jewish identity.
Of course what these Rabbis failed to see was the NAZIs were worried about about this untermensch pollution of “their” stock.
You see my point? Now maintainance of cultural identity matters to a lot of peoples. Many are scared of the old “melting pot”. The absolute sin qua non of doing this is the prevention of miscegenation. I think it’s no coincidence that the ethnic groups in the West that do FGM are also the most paranoid wagon-circlers. And I further think that they are the ethnic groups in this country who tended to arrive as multi-culturalism was getting going. Neither is it a surprise that the though the fastest rising racial “description” in the UK is “mixed” but I will bet that is largely mixed between cultures or ethnicities that don’t circle the wagons. You never see a white bloke and a Somali woman pushing a pram down the highstreet together. David Bowie and Iman maybe…
Or to coin a phrase “races that play together stay together”. Sometime literally. One of the major things against racism in the UK in my lifetime has been the rise of black sports stars. It’s quite hard to say “Wogs out” when you’ve just been cheering your black star-striker net a hat-trick. And of course mixed marriages. I recall when at St James Park they lobbed bananas at John Barnes (racist wit is rarely Wildean). The Toon Army were singing a different tune when “Sir” Les Ferdinand was scoring for fun just a few years later.
Essentially it is multi-culturalism at fault here.
PS. vaguely un-related. Sunfish. Do you know about the scandal of the Middleborough “Child- Abuse” travesty? It certainly lights a red-light on my dashboard wrt to routine medical exams on children to “prevent” them being sexually abused.
Just getting back to this thread; a lot of posts to wade through.
Thanks for the agreement, Verity. I would add that I second Ian B’s “Item 10” in his 14-point list posted way back on Nov 17. (Do you suppose there’s a mosque somewhere in Wittenberg to whose door these could be nailed?) It’s a bit more temperate than my “expel them all” approach, so I suppose it is more palatable to libertarian sensibilities, and might be effective if actually implemented.
But my preference is still for outright prohibition. I am fully aware that’s not kosher libertarianism. But I never claimed to be a doctrinally pure libertarian, and I do not accept any obligation to respect the “freedom” of others whose avowed goal is to deprive me of mine. Not even those who merely abet (through their silence and tacit acceptance) those who act overtly toward that end. The right to self-defense necessarily includes anticipatory retaliation if the threat is real, which the spread of Islam most assuredly is.
I suppose that Ian B is now going to tell me to go groom my toothbrush moustache again. So noted; save the pixels.
Laird, are you some kind of communist?!
:oD
I don’t think prohibition is either feasible or desirable. It’s very hard to prohibit ideas. If I could prohibit one ideology, it would be progressivism, personally, but I don’t see a way to do it. On the point of (un)desirability, any serious attempt to prohibit would indeed lead inevitably and rapidly into some form of fascism, because of the enormous level of intrusion into private lives that would be required.
The sad fact is that without post-WWII leftism, this problem would not even exist.
Nope, Ian, I’m a Dudeist. (Reformed, actually; orthodox Dudeists are a little too uptight for me!)
Dude!
I only wrote my long comment here because I hadn’t read your 15 points.
Care to post that on CCinZ?