I’ve noticed a concerted effort on the part of the mainstream media over the past few weeks to get everyone interested in the plight of the Rohingyas, a minority Muslim group in Myanmar who are being hounded by the majority ruling Buddists.
I have also noticed that nobody seems to give a shit. It might be tempting to put this down to the fact that westerners don’t generally care about brown people being killed in fat-off lands with no oil underneath, but I suspect there is something else at work as well: people in the west are getting a little bit tired of hearing how Muslims are suffering.
There is also a perception, one which is easy to understand, that various western political establishments pander too much to Muslims. Whether it be councils and police ignoring the systematic abuse of children in Rotherham, the British courts jailing a man for leaving bacon outside a mosque, Australian prime ministers taking part in Iftar suppers, newspapers promoting the likes of Linda Sarsour, or police charging people with hate crimes for making Islamaphobic comments on Twitter, there is a growing number of people in the west who believe Muslims are a minority who have got a large chunk of the state apparatus working on their behalf to the detriment of the majority. Whether this perception is valid or not scarcely matters: perceptions in themselves matter.
I’ve worked with lots of great British guys who just happen to be Muslim, it being more of a family thing for them than anything else and “Friday Temple” being more of a tedious family chore that they do to make their parents or grand-parents happy.
It is not these guys who are college educated, work hard and enjoy the little treats in life that we all do that are the problem, nor are they seen as the face of the modern British Muslim.
The reality is that the picture postcard British newspaper “Muslim” if you like is the ignorant recent immigrant living in one of the ghettos of Bradford, Luton, Bolton et al, practicing polygamy on the sly with one “official” wife and up to 3 other single mothers that just happen to share the same house together.
Mohammed (because they’re all Mohammed or some variant thereof aren’t they?), doesn’t work not because of his functional illiteracy, low IQ or inherent bone-idleness. No, Mohammed doesn’t work because he is beloved of Allah and the British who pay for his entire lifestyle are just racist and Islamophobic.
It doesn’t even matter that the above portrait is a stereotype, what matters is that these people do exist in substantial numbers and taxpayers (including the Muslim IT guys I work with) are sick and tired of their bullshit and subsidizing their lifestyles.
This is why no-one gives a tinkers cuss about the Rohingya Muslims of Burma.
I have not looked into the Rohingya situation, but I am highly suspicious of the official narrative, which seems to be: “They were just peacefully practicing their religion when angry Buddhists decided to attack them for no reason whatsoever.”
John Galt,
One correction – Mohammed probably does work, but as a teacher at an Islamic organisation or something. He may claim benefits as well though.
I’ve met the guy plenty of times, and his sons, who are wannabe gangsters – good thing is their role models are generally US gang bangers, not IS self-bangers… (sorry) – and his daughters, who get the best education they can out of threats of violence if they misbehave and out of a desire to escape. And I hear about his mother, who runs the family and demands the girls act like she did when she was young in a mountain village in Pakistan or Somalia (does Somalia have mountains?), but who is the only one who really has contacts in the old country, other than a guy who might get him to sell some drugs he is having exported to him.
And I look forward to the coming fuck up of their little stand-alone societies, where the women are far brighter, far harder-working and far more qualified than the men (that would apply pretty much even if they import brides from Pakistan – the education of women there is improving dramatically), who will often have done time and many of whom will become radicalised by their relative failures, and the men will expect to rule the roost, whilst the matriarchs are no longer around to control things. It’s not sustainable, and the explosion will be hastened by ensuring that funding from the state is limited.
But yeah, until then these scum bags do a good job in getting people to ignore the fate of the Rohingya – which is a pity, as I have a problem with any state murdering its own citizens, regardless of their support for terrorists or otherwise.
John, I agree that there are Muslims who seem to barely qualify, but just keeping their heads down isn’t going to be an option for them for much longer.
We are going to reach a point where western secular democracy is going to have to submit to the horrors of Islam or start a far-too-late fight for its existence. Which way are the “in name only” types going to jump and can we afford to wait for them to make their minds up?
The figures for Muslims who condone violence against gays, against Jews and against pretty much anything else un-Islamic are terrifyingly high even among so-called “moderate” Muslims.
I suspect that, like the “good Germans”, most “moderate” members of a supremely immoderate cult may not be the ones first in line for carrying out the beheadings and throwing people off of buildings but they’ll be the ones making up the numbers and providing the logistic support (barbaric totalitarian regimes need IT support too these days).
How many of the nice Muslims are going to renounce their supposedly nominal faith and fight against their relatives? How many are going to hide you or I in an attic or place us on a list for saving? Probably as few as did in the 30s and 40s.
I’m not happy to bank on their support, are you?
OFF THREAD:
But I think this group may have an interest in following;
https://www.cato-unbound.org/
Which begins with Hannahan on BREXIT for this month.
Expect some sillies.
There are some people I have a hard time trusting: Muslims, Antifa, BLM, the Democratic party, politicians (who are aghast that Trump wants them to do what they campaigned on doing). But above all, I do not trust the media that keep writing puff pieces, or ignoring, the aforesaid. It’s not fair to the decent ones, but …
If they were all gathered together into one country, the survivors would probably name it The People’s Democratic Republic of (Whatever). 😡
JS,
I take it you don’t know many actual Muslims then?
And even if 100% of British Muslims supported something, they’re still about 7% of the population – I don’t think we’re in 1930s Germany situation there, since they could be countered by deploying about half of the population of Scotland… I think you need to get a grip and recognise the real threat is in fact made up on middle-class, native Britons who think the state is the answer, and treat the Muslim population as some sort of icon or pet…
PapayaSF,
It may not be a coincidence that there is Rohingya separatist military groups, it has to be said. Or that Rohingya have been agitating for independence from Burma since Burma became independent (or regained independence, since the British took over an existing kingdom piecemeal there). Although none of that justifies the murder of children and other non-combatants.
Why not? It’s a tactic that has worked successfully since forever. Look at what happened both before and after WWII as British India gradually evolved into India and Pakistan.
This is not to say there hasn’t been violence originating from both sides, but this attitude that the Muslims are always innocent is just the worst and most easily refuted kind of lie.
I beg to differ, Battery Sgt-Major Williams, a veteran of those parts, was almost moved almost to tears.
Amen to that.
The bacon sandwich fellow received a one-year jail sentence and died in prison, which is more punishment than any of the child rapists received.
The UK’s Muslim population has doubled in ten years to 3 million, with half born overseas and parts of London now approaching majority Muslim populations.
Still a small part of the total but how many newspapers would publish an image of Mohammad? How much is spent tracking security threats? What is the level of social trust after so many senseless attacks in public spaces? Is limited government ever possible when a growing population of zealots commits mass murder on a regular basis?
If we were to view this on a neutral basis through the lens of economics I suspect that the Risk Adjusted Rate of Return of Mohammed and his offspring would look pretty negative way into the future.
If I’m going to subsidize somebody’s lifestyle then I have at least got the right to expect them to be grateful about it rather than pour a figurative bucket of shit over my head.
Chip, I fear it’s worse than that. There is no “church/state” distinction in Islamic dogma. The only “limited government” we see in countries dominated by Muslims is that government power is sometimes limited by clerics who want everything to conform to Islamic principles.
And thanks for bringing up the social trust issue. That’s one of those cultural aspects that libertarians tend to ignore.
I had heard of the Rohingya before this. I am sorry for them; though there have been Rohingya terrorist attacks they are more often victims than oppressors. That ethnic cleansing is taking place is not even denied by the Myanmar authorities. I am disappointed in Aung San Suu Kyi.
Over the sixteen years since September 11 2001 the media campaign of denial and deflection regarding Islamic-inspired atrocities has had a predictable result.
The below is from the Gates of Vienna
I have no personal knowledge of Burma –but others my be better placed to comment.
“Oh oh oh, pity the poor mohammedans
by H. Numan
Yeah really, folks. Because the poor pitiable Rohingya who settled (illegally) in Burma (Myanmar) can’t rape, rob or kill Buddhists as they desire. That’s really sad, don’t you agree? No respect for different cultures. As it happens, I live almost around the corner, in Thailand. I’ve been to Burma a couple of times. That doesn’t make me an expert, of course. Real experts are [white] female professors at left-wing universities who teach Female Gender Mutilation or African Arts. Who have never been to the country at all. What happens in Myanmar is about to happen — or happening already — in the West, too.
A little bit of the background for you. British India included Pakistan in the west, India in the middle, Bengal in the east and Burma a bit further to the east. Burma was never formally part of British India, but a separate colony. Bengal and Burma share a long border. In 1948, when India became independent, Bengal became part of Pakistan and was renamed East Pakistan. Burma also became independent. Later on in the ’70s East Pakistan fought itself free from West Pakistan, which used it as a colony to be exploited. It gained full independence as Bangladesh. Formerly East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, is dirt poor, intolerant as only mohammedans can be, and is treated annually by Allah with a couple of massive floods with usually shocking loss of life and property. The damage is always restored by very generous and very dhimmi western countries. We Dutch also live in a major river delta; we know it takes quite a bit of work not to get flooded every year. Bangladeshi seem have other things on their minds. Procreating, mainly.
Burma shares a border with Bangladesh. The Burmese state Rakhine (also known as Arrakan) borders Bangladesh, has a large percentage of mohammedans, and is much dryer. From 1948 onwards lots of Rohingya, originating in Bangladesh on the other side of the border, crossed over and settled in Rakhine. They rather liked it there, and decided they wanted it. With full indirect support of East Pakistan they tried to take over the state. That almost became a real war, which they lost. The East Pakistani/Bangladeshis were permitted to stay, but they never got Burmese citizenship. Something they bitterly resent.
Burma itself deteriorated into one of the worst military dictatorships of the world in 1962. The official name of the country was changed from the Union of Burma into the Union of Myanmar in 1989. It changed lots of other names; for example, Rangoon is now Yangoon and actually no longer the capital. The SLORC (name of the military dictatorship) build an entire new capital city, Naypyidaw in the middle of nowhere, literally. Hardly a soul lives there. I’ve been there. Tourists are allowed to visit it, but it is eerily quiet. Almost like a superbly maintained ghost town. Before the military takeover in 1962 Burma was widely seen as the up-and-coming country in southeast Asia. Thailand not so much; that was much more a backwater. After the 1962 takeover the roles completely reversed. Burma is now the official backwater of the continent.
There are a lot of people who know squat about Buddhism and perceive it to be peaceful. Buddhists can be as violent and intolerant as any other religion. Burma itself was a highly militarized state (it still is) and very aggressive. For many centuries Burma was at war with the kingdoms of Sukhothai, Ayutthaya and Siam, which later became the kingdom of Thailand. The Burmese were able to conquer the capital of Ayutthaya, burned it to the ground, destroyed all the statues of the Buddha, took the population back home as slaves and exterminated the royal family.
To be fair, the Thais, Lao or Khmer behaved exactly the same when given the chance. It was custom to hide valuables in Buddha statues. Not surprisingly, some less religiously inclined soldiers were somewhat inquisitive. Even today lost treasures are sometimes found in Buddha statues. The relations between Thailand and Burma are better than they used to be, but border incidents do happen fairly frequently.
Is Myanmar a militaristic society? Judge for yourself. I counted 21 large military barracks on the way from the airport to Rangoon (50 km). I probably missed a few; I only noticed the large ones. During a tourist presentation, nearly all Burmese presented themselves as military men, in uniform. ‘Col. Y will inform you about …’, ‘Cap. X can answer any questions you may have’. I have rarely seen a paddy wagon in Holland or Thailand. During my trips through Burma I saw several, loaded to full capacity. Standing room only. “That’s anecdotal evidence!” progressive university professors will scream. But it somehow does give me the impression of a very militaristic society.
Internally Burma is not exactly a peaceful country. It is a union or federation of states, a bit like America. And there are lots of very active independence movements fighting the army. In a military stalemate: the army can’t defeat the independence movements, and the independence movements cannot defeat the army. The independence movements, for example the Karen Liberation army and the united Wa State Army, make money by producing hard drugs like opium, heroin and amphetamines. They sell it in and through Thailand. The infamous Golden Triangle is no longer working in Thailand, but very much so in Burma.
Back to the poor pitiable Rohingya. From 1948 onwards they crossed the border and parked their goats in Burma. Relations between the original (Buddhist) Rakhinese and (mohammedan) Rohingya were never good. Perhaps the Rohingya cultural habit of raping Rakhinese girls or robbing and/or murdering non-muslims has something to do with it. Things became really nasty when Rohingyas started to murder and behead Buddhist monks around 2012. The Burmese army had to intervene to prevent all Rohingya from being sent directly to allah. Burmese aren’t exactly as meek as Westerners are, so when Rohingyas raped a Rakhinese girl or murdered someone, they were paid in kind with some interest added.
The Burmese government is first and foremost Burmese (or Myanmarese, if you prefer). Right after that they are Buddhist, then military and very little else. Human rights are rare, foreigners are slightly suspicious and cuddling pitiable minorities doesn’t rate high on the agenda.
Even Aung San Suu Kyi doesn’t mince words about the poor suppressed sadly misunderstood Rohingya. That doesn’t sit very well in left-wing circles. They put lots of pressure on the Nobel prize committee in Norway to withdraw her Nobel Prize. That’s not possible, but it shows the hatred for people who don’t think the right (in this case: left) way.
What you may not know is that there are two very different types of Nobel prizes. The real ones are awarded in Stockholm. They are given for truly important discoveries in science. In Oslo two fake Nobel prizes are awarded: for peace and for literature. It’s not really possible to quantify objectively who should get one. Finland, not exactly a world leader in literature, was awarded a prize for literature in 1940 because … poor Finland was invaded by the Soviet Union. Iceland (population < 340,000) got one in 1955 because dear little Iceland otherwise will never get a Nobel Prize. Yasser Arafat, Nelson Mandela and even a certain Mr. Hussein Obama got peace prizes. But Mahatma Gandhi never got one. Need I say more?
Effectively, the colonization of Rakhine state has failed. However, mohammedans have a very different view. Once they colonize a territory, it’s theirs. Forever. No matter what. So they mobilize their Western allies to pump up the pity machine. Rohingya are suppressed, misunderstood, persecuted and need our full support. Plenty of propaganda journalists who can write sad stories and take heartbreaking photos of little mistreated babies.
Yes, Burma (or Myanmar) is a country where human rights are practically non-existent. It’s also a Buddhist country were 86% of the population is Buddhist. 6% is Christian, 4% is mohammedan, and 2% animist. There are no religious problems with other religious groups. Plenty of problems, but none are religion-related. The only state in Burma with a substantial percentage of mohammedans is Rakhine state, where 52% are Buddhist and 47% mohammedan. That automatically leads to mohammedan violence, as they are nearly in the majority. Do I need to say what will happen once they are the majority?
What you will see are poor mistreated Rohingya, but you will not see or hear anything the Rohingya do themselves. They rape, rob and murder where they can. Since 2012 Buddhist monks have been their preferred targets, if possible by beheading. You won’t hear a peep about that. It would spoil the picture. What you also will not read in the media is that all those Rohingya are effectively Bangladeshi citizens, and should — since they are no longer wanted or accepted in Burma — go back to that country. But Bangladesh doesn’t want them back. They bring in money, and at the same time work on taking over Rakhine state, something Bangladesh very much wants to add to its territory.
Same story for nearly all other mohammedan countries. Turkey isn’t keen to see its citizens come back, and Morocco even less, for example. In both cases, they make huge amounts of money from their expatriates and politically infiltrate very quietly into those countries. It doesn’t say so in the koran, but we should respect that culture. Once they live in our countries, that is forever.
As always, they want to move to countries where life is a lot better. For example, to Thailand. There are lots of refugee camps in Thailand, where people from Laos, Cambodia and Burma are sheltered. The only group of people Thailand no longer accepts are … you probably guessed it … Rohingya. Their brethren in the faith in Malaysia aren’t willing to receive them either. Why? Every left-wing activist will tell you that’s because of the brutal oppressive regimes there.
The darker side of the Rohingya is something you will not read about in the mainstream media."
Watchman,
Yes I do know actual Muslims. Lots of Jews were friends with Germans, until suddenly their German friends backed away as soon as they had to chose one side or the other.
“they’re still about 7% of the population” How many percent were they 20 years ago? The Muslim population is growing at a far greater rate than non-Muslim Britons. Non-muslims are ageing and not giving birth at replacement level. Younger Muslims, second and third generation are more radical than their elders.
“they could be countered by deploying about half of the population of Scotland” – that is not going to happen while the Muslim vs non-Muslim population is at it’s current ratio, is it? Given the brainwashing we’ve undergone, who exactly is going to lead this fightback and how desperate will things have to become? It’s considered phenomenally bad form to get even slightly angry about terrorism and “grooming” gangs at the moment.
The future belongs to those who want it the most. At the moment and for the foreseeable future Muslim fanatics have the ruthless will to rule and Non-Muslim Britons are demoralized and conditioned into self-hatred.
“recognise the real threat is in fact made up on middle-class, native Britons who think the state is the answer, and treat the Muslim population as some sort of icon or pet…”
The two go together. While the Quislings are in charge the situation will only get worse.
Don’t mistake the Middle Class for “Non-Muslim Britons”, they are by far the minority.
The working class are still the majority in the UK and have “views” about Mohammed and his pals that are untainted by middle class sensibilities.
If the shit hit the fan then the British working classes would happily (and with gay abandon) give Mo and his pals a good kicking.
The vast majority of Muslim nations have bloody borders. I don’t recall anyone saying the same about Buddhist nations.
Probably shouldn’t put 3rd world former ‘dissidents’ on a pedestal and assume they share the same beliefs as western bourgeois liberals.
Regarding this situation, let the Muslim countries stand up to Burma if they are that offended by it. If that happens hopefully the Burmese military gives them a bloody nose and then some.
It should be remembered (or rather, known) that the predominant ideology in post-independence Burma has been ‘the Burmese way to socialism‘. Not even Mr Ecks’ quoted piece mentions the base of the ideology, or how Burma became the craphole that it is,
The BBC religiously 🙂 ignore the ‘socialist’ ideology of the Burmese military, a long-standing habitof avoiding mentioning awkward facts. However, things are now so bad for the Rohingya that they are fleeing (back) to Bangladesh. From what I know the Rohingya were used by the British in WW2 to fight the Japs, which didn’t go down well with the Burmese, and communal tensions are long-standing. However, we are where we are and things aren’t nice. I have only heard passing mention of the co-ordinated attacks on Burmese police posts by Rohingya ‘militants’ and the large death toll arising.
The first rule is that the media always pick the vilest side that they can find to support.
Kicking is fairly ineffectual. Y’all really need to regain your right to arm yourselves for your own defense. Without that, you’d better hope . . . well, you’d just better hope.
Bobby B–No.
It is likely that there aren’t enough guns in Jihadi hands to make a difference in an all out battle. Enough for terror antics maybe but in a straight fight– one where they started shooting en masse– all bets would be off. That includes bets on any UK bluebottles who think we could be forced to just stand there while Jihadis shoot us.
With small scale capers the cultural marxist arseholes will be able to keep control. But the more big trouble looms the less power the states goons can wield.
“they’re still about 7% of the population”
Beyond 10%, your society is doomed.
The shit will never hit the fan though, because there won’t be a single, defined threat to be overcome. Instead, the slow inexorable creep of demography will slowly bend society away from what was, to what is.
No city was more working class than Bradford, the epicentre of the industrial revolution. And yet last year a man named Nissar Hussain was forced to leave the city after being harassed for six long years and finally being attacked with pickaxe handles. His crime? Converting to Christianity.
Among the fastest-growing population of ethnic Pakistanis, 37% of marriages are with first cousins in the home country.
The working class isn’t resisting wholesale change to their city. They’re just leaving. I mentioned previously the Cockneys of the East End. Where are they today? Demography is destiny.
The Bangkok Post has recently been trying to push the “poor Rohingya” story and it’s not going down well at all in Thailand……people are pushing back. 😎
Come off it. Your ‘mettle is all bred out’. You all voted and voted and got what you got.
Mr Ecks, thanks for posting that history lesson. I knew a little of that, but not much. Burma is proof that no place is so bad that the presence of Muslims can’t make it worse. Incidentally, Gates of Vienna is a good site; I should visit it more often.
@ Natalie: “Over the sixteen years since September 11 2001 the media campaign of denial and deflection regarding Islamic-inspired atrocities has had a predictable result.” Indeed it has. I no longer care in the slightest whatever happens to Muslims, anywhere in the world, and quite a large number of other people feel that same way, too. With justification. Frankly, a dose of “ethnic cleansing” in Burma sounds like a fine idea.
@ Bruce: “Beyond 10%, your society is doomed.” Indeed. That is precisely why I want my country (the US) to come as close as possible to banning any more Muslim immigration; the 1% we have now if more than enough. Every Muslim-dominated country in the world, without exception, is a utter shithole, completely hostile to civilized society or economic prosperity. Let them live in their own filth; I don’t want it brought here.
Your viewpoint is quite a common one (albeit expressed with a look over the shoulder first) and in my eyes justified. It also illustrates the disconnect between the mainstream media and the general public.
It is also the reason why our politicos (Trump accepted perhaps) are so out of touch. They think the mainstream media is still somehow meaningful or represents anything but the biased opinion of the editorial staff.
@john malpas: Not quite sure who the “You” is in this context?
I for one have had enough of islam. They are savages that we could ignore when they were only able to rape and brutalise their own people, but now their primitive barbarism is a world wide activity. I’d not be troubled in the least to see islam made illegal everywhere and mass deportations to enforce it. Send them back to the land of allah and when they have matured past the point of raping child brides and keeping slaves, I’ll reconsider their admission status.
There is another angle worth considering. For many, the idea that Buddhists might do mean things to others is outside their mental frame of reference. Buddhism gets a fairly easy ride (well, unless you are an atheist, as I am, and regard any form of religion as bunk). They are perceived as advocating peace, love, sitting bow-legged listening to odd noise and eating vegetables. It is the sort of world-view that seems to attract a certain type of Westerner. The reality is more complex, needless to say.
Agree with the thrust of the original quote.
Such a shame; I was hoping that the country formerly known as Burma would be improving, rather as Vietnam has, but this appears not to be the case.
Burma won’t improve until the military junta, both past and present are ousted from power. Although the likes of General Than Shwe have nominally ‘retired’ they are still a source of tremendous power and patronage. His replacement Min Aung Hlaing is almost as bad as he was.
Don’t expect any help from Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy party either, since they are mostly the usual socialist fools who will run the country into the ground before providing anything more than grudging support for reform and genuine free markets.
I suspect that Burma will have to go through the fire of stagnation and economic collapse before genuine reform under a genuine reformer can take place. The current political leaders on both sides of Burma’s political divide are all has beens, yesterday’s men (and women), still fighting a war that is already lost.
It’s a genuine story, for the same reason that ‘man bites dog’ is a story.
But when it does, there’s a lot of opportunity there, particularly given it’s a natural route from China to the Bay of Bengal, and part of the New Silk Road initiative…
“…This market of 60 million people is blessed with bountiful natural resources including natural gas deposits, untapped hydropower sources, minerals, forestry, and plentiful arable land. As part of this transition process, the country has adopted new laws and avenues to attract foreign investment such as the November 2012 foreign investment law and the establishment of a stock exchange.”
Interestingly, there’s even a startup scene in Myanmar.
https://capitalistexploits.at/2014/12/starting-up-in-myanmar/
There’s a report linked right at the bottom of the page, and a couple of other, interesting reads linked at the top.
The BBC (and the “alternative” to the BBC – Sky News) are very upset about what is happening in Burma.
But then they are also upset that the people sent to enquire into the causes of the recent fire in a London tower block (which led to many deaths) have the wrong colour skin – being “white”.
To the BBC there is no objective truth (so the colour of the skin of a judge is important – as everything is relative to skin colour) which is why I do not trust their reporting about Burma – or anything else.
Of course they could indeed be telling the truth about Burma – but when people repeatedly lie to me (about all sorts of things) as the “mainstream media” have, I tend to distrust everything they say.
My guess (it is no more than a guess) is that the situation in Burma is horribly similar to the situation in Indonesia in 1966.
One side (in the case of Indonesia in 1966 the Communists, in the case of Burma recently the forces of Islam) has started a war – but then the other side has had a walk-over victory and has decided to smash their enemies so they can never attack again. Horrible – yes indeed horrible, very horrible. But perhaps one should not attack opponents who are much stronger than one’s self.
Mohammed taught that one should not attack enemies that are much stronger than one’s own side – indeed he taught that one should pretend peace and friendship till one is strong enough (and in the correct position) to launch a decisive attack, even when one is dealing with a foe weaker than one’s own side. But the Muslims in Burma appear (appear) to have ignored Mohammed’s sound military advice of attacking only when one has a reasonable chance of victory, and followed Douglas Haig’s advice of “attack whenever possible” (London Gazette 1919 – “Why we attacked whenever possible” and without any real plan to win such attacks) and Mohammed had a far better grasp of the principles of war than Douglas Haig did.
Or it could be that sometimes some groups engage in activities that cause the people around them to “hound” them, and that a lot of us who would otherwise feel a bit of sympathy for them take the position that “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes” also known as “People make choices. Choices have consequences”.
You mention Rotterdam and etc., but I notice you don’t mention how the Copts are treated in Egypt, how Lebanon allowed Muslims to settle there during one of those periods when the Muslim world ganged up on Israel and got it’s ass kicked, and went from being a pleasant, modernist, moderately western country to a war torn shit hole because of their charity.
Given the almost 1500 year history of Islam in Asia unless the Rohigyas are unique in Islam for rejecting violence in both word and deed–which also means rejecting large parts of the Koran and the Haditha–I don’t really blame the Buddhists for this one.
William O. B’Livion – I do not think that even the most passionate defenders of the forces of Islam in Burma have said that “the Rohigyas have rejected violence in both word and deed” – indeed everyone accepts that the Islamic forces in Burma have been attacking, the compliant is that the Burmese reaction has been massively over-the-top. Aimed at driving out the whole community, not just the attackers.
When killing cockroaches, you don’t just kill the ones that shit on your kitchen floor and contaminate your food because all that happens is that mommy cockroach just breeds another gazillion, some of which will shit on your kitchen floor.
When killing cockroaches or any infestation, you attack it root-and-branch, time-and-again until every single one of them is dead.
Half-measures lead to half-solutions and future problems.
Yeah. And speaking as someone who has lived in Lagos, Accra, Durban, Miami and New York, the roaches will be back next year regardless.
“the compliant is that the Burmese reaction has been massively over-the-top.”
If you’re going to fight a war, especially a defensive, existential one, the only rational strategy is disproportionate, over-the-top, utter destruction of your enemies. Hit them so hard they can never hurt you again. Ignoring that simple, sane approach is why the west loses, time after time. Even though we possess overwhelming military might, we fight only hard enough that our enemies sue for peace, then forgive their trespasses and help them rebuild, only to see the cycle repeated. And we actually care about the whines of the leftist media and the international “intelligentsia”, rather than simply ignoring (if not outright mocking) them. If the Burmese government is taking that approach, I salute their military savvy even if their leadership is otherwise reprehensible.
The Islamic war in Burma/Myanmar is arguably a microcosm of the West. It sometimes seems to me as though Samizdata discussions are being played on a continuous loop/tape – a bit like the old 8-track audio cassettes – especially where Islam is being discussed. It gets discussed….and later discussed…etc. Always the same old same old.
I think it’s important to mention/repeat some things here.
Let’s say that I make the statement: “I am afraid that Islam, which has given us so much culture. has been poisoned and looks to be in terminal decline.”
We need only look around for evidence to support or contradict this:
(a) Statistically/demographically: Islam is not in any sort of decline – it is unequivocally in the ascendant – and Muslim clerics are well-aware of this and will point to it as being “Allah’s will”. Whereas the most populous religion used to be RC, the 2008/9 statistics/estimates apparently showed that, out of a global population of 6 billion, 1.6 billion are Islamists, and 1.4 billion are RC/Christian. This was the first time RC/Christian was not the largest figure in the stats. In most of the free/democratic Western countries/societies (e.g., Europe, USA, Canada, etc.), Muslims are among the fastest growing minorities – if not already the fastest growing minority. If one watches vid clips from Sweden, it cannot easily escape notice where the Swedish Muslims keep saying “This is our country”. They are sincere and they really mean it, and it is.
(b) Ideologically: No decline. The Islamic religion (including its cornerstone Shari’ah law) has shown itself to be the the most powerful, inflexible and unchanging collectivist-Fascist religio-political ideology on the planet, surpassing anything else – including (for example) ordinary Fascism, Roman Catholicism, Marxism/Communism. Witness Turkey, once apparently rid of Islam by Attaturk (who called it “a cancer”) and made a secular and democratic society, now has an elected non-secular Islamic party in power in their parliament, and it is passing laws biased towards Islamicism and Shari’ah (law) – e.g., the wearing of the veil (hajib) or a burkah, both of which had been banned by Attaturk.
(c) In statute/law: No decline. The UK, once famed for having “the same law for everyone”, now allows for Shari’ah law to be used as an alternative for “settling disputes” where Muslims prefer that. Many Brits are now protesting about it. Non-muslims, of course, cannot request to use Shari’ah law without becoming a Muslim first. Legal preferences towards Islam are happening in other parts of Europe – e.g., Holland, where many people are now protesting about it.
(d) The Koran: No decline. I don’t know how much of the Koran/Q’uran you may have read, but I have made quite a study of English translations of it over the last 17 years. It is a potentially amazingly powerful book. No other religion has anything like it. The Jewish Talmud and other scriptures, the Old Testament, the New Testament – they were all written by mere men, e.g., Mathew, Mark, Luke and John of the New Testament. The Koran though is the absolute and infallible word of Allah, given to Mohammed by the Archangel Gabriel in a vision in one night. Gabriel was reading Allah’s words from where they were written on stone tablets in Heaven, and he taught Mohammed to recite them. The Koran means “recital”. So when a Muslim holds the Koran in the air and quotes from it in Arabic, he is repeating the absolute and infallible words of Allah. That’s why the only true way to learn and understand it is in Arabic – which was the language used by Gabriel.
So what?
1. The Koran: The thing is that Allah (whose words are recorded in the Koran) makes a lot of statements and commandments about what Muslims should and should not do in the detail of their everyday personal domestic and commercial life. It tells them what to think and how to think. It is a fiendishly clever set of rules and circular reasoning and self-supporting “logic” and rationalisations. For example: when and how to pray; not to associate or do business with unbelievers (kaffirs) unless it can lead to the spread of Islam; how to beat a wife correctly when chastising her; women are guilty of creating desire in the minds of men, and so must cover all parts of their bodies when in public; women are silly and given to frippery; women are worth only half as much as men; the only way women can get to go to Paradise is when they have been faithful and join their husband in Paradise; when to engage in sexual intercourse; to ensure that all children – including children begotten from one’s slave-women – must be brought up in the Islamic faith; et cetera. The Koran is chock-full of such explicit advice and instruction. Since it is the absolute and infallible word of Allah, none of this can be denied, argued with or “interpreted” in some other preferred or mitigating manner, and Muslims cannot pick and choose which bits to believe/follow – it is Allah’s infallible word, don’t forget. “Islam” means “submit” – and all Muslims must submit to the word and will of Allah. There is no room for such concepts as “free will” or “freedom” in this – that is why one will sometimes see photos of Muslim protesters holding up signs that say “Freedom Go To Hell”, or similar.
2. Dar al-Harb: Every good Muslim who has read, understood and learned the Koran knows that it tells them – and that they must believe – that (for example):
There is a clear distinction between the world of Islam (Dar al-Islam) and the world of heresy (Dar al-Harb) – they are antithetical. This is classic “You are either with us or against us” psychology. All non-Muslims are in the latter bucket, of course, along with the Jews who (because they brought about the crucifixion of Christ, who was a true prophet of Allah) are a special case and must be expunged from the earth. Muslim children are taught what Allah says about Jews – that they are descended from pigs and dogs (the vilest of unclean creatures). This is why The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem – Haj Amin el-Husseini – had it exactly right in 1941 when he went to meet Hitler and wanted to help Hitler exterminate the Jews. A Mufti is an expert in the Islamic Shari’ah (law) who gives legal judgments called fatwas. Haj Amin el-Husseini is regarded as being one of the greatest of modern Islamic leaders.
3. The Islamic faith: must be the dominant religion in any country where Muslims live – Allah has said so (it is in the Koran). The unbelievers in dar al-harb must come to understand this, or suffer the punishment that Allah will give them through his servants in Islam. There is no “middle ground” or compromise with the word of Allah – it is absolute. Apostates must be killed. It is forbidden by Allah to commit violence or mayhem on people for the sake of it, but Muslims feel compelled to do this where Allah’s word commands it – because Allah commands that the unbelievers are not to be spared except if they come into the Islamic faith and obey the will of Allah in truth, whereupon Allah will save them. This way, there shall be peace. The unbelievers live in decadence and corruption, with belief in blasphemies such as the Christian Holy Trinity, or in no god at all (atheism) but man-made concepts such as “human conscience”, “freedom”, or “human rights”. These things are nothing to do with Allah and must all be swept away by Islam and governance under the Shari’ah law. (“Great is the wisdom of Allah.”)
4. Jihad: If you lose your life fighting jihad (holy war) against the Infidels, then you go straight to Paradise where you will find 72 (count ’em) dusky-eyed virgins awaiting you. Yesss!!
_______________________
Anyway, that is the gist of it. There’s lots more, and it is all equally infallible. Another infallible thing was Mohammed (pbuh). He was a mortal human being and a true prophet of Allah (as was Christ). Mohammed (pbuh) was the last and final true prophet too – so any more of ’em are to be regarded as impostors to be swiftly punished by death. Because Mohammed (pbuh) was such a pure Muslim, any Muslim man who can emulate him will secure for himself a place in Paradise. So it’s OK then to marry 6 or 8-year-old girls (like Mohammed (pbuh) who married Aysha aged 6) and have sex with them, chop off Infidels’ heads (Mohammed (pbuh) executed over 500 in similar fashion), and so forth.
Belief: One thing that amazes me is that most Muslims (and I know many, including ordinary working class people, middle class and doctors, for example) actually believe all of this cr#p – including the otherwise apparently well-educated ones. For example, one of the London bomb-makers had an MSc (or a BSc Hons.) in chemistry and claimed that this proved that he was an educated man and so the claim that Islamic terrorists “are so thick they cannot think for themselves” was untrue – which coincidentally rather contradicts any statement to that effect, and any Muslim who claims that “Islamic terrorists are thick” (or WTTE) would know that, so he may be dissembling. Dishonesty, trickery or dissembling is forbidden when dealing with other Muslims, but not when dealing with the Infidels to avoid inconvenient conflict and when it is in the furtherance of the objective of obeying Allah’s will for Islamic supremacy. (“Great is the wisdom of Allah.”)
Surely I am overstating things? Maybe you have been asleep. Islamism is like rust and “like a cancer” (Attaturk). It is very old, patient and remorseless, and never sleeps. It has been creeping up on us whilst we were asleep. It is an existential threat. Now it is systemic in most Western societies and so cannot be eradicated without harming ourselves or foregoing or breaching society’s own principles and laws (e.g., equality under the law, democracy, freedom, freedom of speech, freedom to practice one’s religion, “human rights”, the right to a fair trial, etc.).
Not to worry – Muslims will acculturate, once they have had a taste of “Western culture”. Yeah, right. How’s that working out?
What to do? It may be that the fastest approach to peace with Islam (“The Religion of Peace”™) would be for us all to submit and sign on at the local mosque. A bit tough on the Jews that though, as they will no longer have any friends/protectors and will still have to be exterminated by the rest of us ASAP. But at least the bulk of the rest of humanity should be pretty much OK after the Jews have all been killed. Phew! What a relief!
If you think that this is joking, then consider this:
The Victorian Prime Minister William Gladstone once brandished the Koran in the House of Commons, announcing with great authority and prescience “so long as there is this book, there will be no peace in the world”. On another occasion, Mr Gladstone referred to the Koran as “this accursed book”.
If he was right, then it is that book that should probably be the focus. For example, why do we continue to allow this life-hating ancient Arabic Mein Kampf to be published and used in our societies to indoctrinate and condition the thinking of children and adults in Islamic mosques and Islamic faith schools, and in ordinary universities? It would seem to be that it is the Koran and its use as a so-called “customary religious scripture” that needs to be banned/prohibited. (Together with the Shari’ah law that supports it and which is being incrementally introduced into British and other societies.)
If you think that banning is possible, then reflect on the fact that it was announced in 2009 that the bicentenary of the birth of the Prime Minister William Gladstone was to be celebrated by spending £500,000 on the establishment of an “Islamic Reading Room” in Hawarden, Flintshire.
The St Deniol’s Library in Hawarden, which is funded by the national lottery, houses Gladstone’s own collection of over 32,000 items. According to St Deniol’s website at the time, “a principal aim of the Gladstone 200 Campaign will be to build and resource an Islamic Reading Room at St Deiniol’s which will enable Christians and others to reach a deeper understanding of Islam and its place in the contemporary world. We want to increase the depth and scope of the collection so that it is a useful resource for Islamic scholars as well.”
That could look a little bit like checkmate to many/most people.
+10 for Slartibartfast. A few links for further reading.
Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins by Robert Spencer. A fascinating history of early Islam. I believe that we should be attacking the veracity of Islam at its roots, because once the infallibility aspect falls, the religion might be able to reform.
Muslim opinion polls. Undeniable and depressing statistics.
”The Project” – The Islamic plan of conquest nobody paid attention to.
The problem of inbreeding in Islam.
Why Arabs Hate Reading.
You have always been able to use any “law” you like (if the other party agrees) in the UK when agreeing to arbitration, so no change on that score.
Every 61 minutes the NHS assesses a case of female genital mutilation.
I’m sure the other party agreed, so no change on that score.
If you refuse to enforce the law – for FGM, the girls in Rotherham and elsewhere – then another law will take its place.
Don’t be a jackass, Chip. FGM is not a matter amenable to arbitration as it falls under criminal law. And contrary to Slartibartfarst’s confused understanding of law pertaining to arbitration, Sharia does not supersede anything even if both parties wish it did. You can use Anglican church law, or Jewish law, or the Satanic law, or the Code of Hammurabi, or the wit and wisdom of John Cleese as a basis for arbitration. Not enforcing the actual law of the land is quite another issue, and is also why Muslims are not the real problem, middle class white people who fail to do their job are.
The biggest push for Sharia law comes in the areas of the interactions between men and women – marriage law, domestic violence law, child custody law.
They certainly do intend that their own code supersede local, Western-based law.
Sharia law generally involves the end of protections to self that Western law has granted to people who are not powerful enough to protect themselves from the stronger savages, and our governments are going along with it to an alarming degree.
Sharia advocates aren’t appealing to their own enforcers to be paid for the number of widgets they contracted to sell. They’re upending the Western laws that protect people from other people, on the basis that allah says it’s okay to enslave women and kids.
You make it sound like we’re simply allowing them to choose their own venues for traffic court. That’s incorrect. We’re allowing them to enslave people by denying those people the protections our societies exist in order to provide.
Sure, if I loose my jackal, and it rips someone to shreds, I ought to be punished for carelessness. But the jackal needs to be put down too.
bobby: Very good.
(Deleted own double post.)
Perry de Havilland (London) wrote – September 14, 2017 at 6:32 pm:
Yes, thanks @Perry, I think I am/was aware of that (from studying British law years ago, not from direct experience), and that was why I avoided using the word “arbitration”, and used the term “settling disputes”. The latter could include, for example, a woman appealing to have a full 100% share of an inheritance (under UK law), rather than the 50% that would be accorded under Sharia law – Muslim women being a subordinate (to men) minority within Islam who have lesser rights.
Muslim women would generally be fearful of stepping outside of, and thus publicly breaking faith with any single component of the Sharia law or a Hadith, because of the potentially severe punishment (e.g., could include death if it was deemed to be apostasy) for doing so, and would thus probably feel safer/easier by default, in a Sharia court.
Muslim women are NOT free to test the alternative fairness/justice of the British judicial system, because they are more than likely to be ignorant (uneducated) and self-imprisoned by fear in their own minds, arising from years of fully-immersed induction and propaganda regarding the Islamic dogma, from the age of 4 upwards. This, of course, is just another point that reflects the all-knowing wisdom of Allah.
In a Sharia court a woman would thus presumably necessarily be resigned to accepting her subordinate minority status as being just. She would not dare to contradict it, because that would be contradicting Sharia law, and that might mean death/excommunication (arguably perceived to be much the same thing in many closed sects). This could also go for “resolution” of the claim of rape, with the victim never daring to raise the matter outside of her local Sharia court (QED).
I think @bobby b puts it quite well (above) – arguably better than I did, anyway.
Given the above, it would probably not be feasible for (say) a typically ignorant Muslim woman to “use any ‘law’ they like (if the other party agrees)”. They are trapped.
Since someone has already mentioned FGM (above), I would point out that it is these same ignorant women who perpetrate the selfsame crime of FGM as has been enacted on themselves, on their 11 y/o girl children – because they believe it to be right/necessary and are fearful of Allah’s wrath should they break with any single component of Sharia law or Hadith.
So the women are brought up to effectively be compliant, self-governing little robots.
(“Great is the Wisdom of Allah.”)
Slartibartfast
For years, there have been Jewish ‘courts’ in the UK. Here is a piece by the Henry Jackson Society on how they operate and ‘fit in’ within the schemes permitted under the Arbitration Act 1996, it seems at a glance to be quite good in its assessment of the situation.
RE:Burma–here is another link:
http://www.gearoidocolmain.org/rohingya-psyops-us-covert-war-myanmar/
Mr. Ecks, you might want to be careful of analysis by someone who thinks the global Zionist conspiracy is really a thing, and that the British and the US governments think getting fungible minerals from some third world shithole is best achieved by destabilising said shithole, rather than just buying whatever crap it is they dig up on the open market.
The country of Burma will certainly be improving if it goes about seriously removing its Muslim population. Even if it remains a complete shithole in every other respect.
Demographics will change all of this. It all boils down to demographics in the end, which is why Europe is lost unless something changes fairly quickly.
Good post by booby b above. Naïve opinions by PDH as per usual.
@Mr Ed: Interesting document. Thanks. But what/why/point?…
The page http://www.socialcohesion.uk/islamon-campus.html looks strangely MT.
Hmm…maybe my browser’s BadAdJohnny was blocking it… 😮
Slartibartfast,
The Jews using the Beth Din (their ‘courts’) just get on with it in their own way, avoiding the slow and expensive state courts and keeping things ‘within’ their community/family, and it distracts them from writing protocols, or so I’m told 😉 . There’s really nothing to see there, honest.
@Chip wrote – September 14, 2017 at 9:23 pm:
Yeah, and:
Every 2½ minutes, a woman somewhere in the UK gives birth. SHE MUST BE STOPPED.
Your turn.
Yeah not sharing your hysterical inability to see where the real problem lies, and Islamic nutters are just a consequence not the cause. But of course they are more noticeable than the mostly white and native born real problem.
The progressive/left in Western countries are a problem, a big one. They opened the door to this problem because they enjoy seeing the destruction of tradition. But it is Islam which is the civilisation destroyer, the big problem that has been stalking the West since the beginning. This is the one we need to face and to win against, and we don’t have too long. Demographic change will sweep away all of the traditional protections and ways of doing things that you assume will always be there.
People are not interchangeable blanks. Once you change the people you change everything about a place. Islamic people make for an Islamic place. And in such a place arguments about law or about any other way of doing anything are nothing in the face of Islam and the Sharia.
@Perry de Havilland (London) wrote – September 15, 2017 at 9:49 am:
I are confuzzled by this. Did you really mean to suggest that the global Zionist conspiracy is NOT really a thing?
Methinks you underestimate that Parisian journalist Haemorrhóid O’Colmáin’s je ne sais quoi.
Looking at Haemorrhóid’s photo there, one gets the distinct impression that it is a deliberate pose to modestly understate the person. For example, the carefully tied oversize Windsor knot in the undersized white shirt collar, the ill-fitting 3-piece suit (assuming he isn’t wearing shorts), the badly pressed shirtfront.
No, look into the eyes – I dare you. Not around the eyes, but into the eyes – “the windows to the soul”, as Mohammed (pbuh) reputedly put it, 1,400 years ago, in the Al-Hump Hadith, when he had had a spontaneous vision of the Archangel Gabriel mowing the lawn, just as he (Mo – pbuh) had finished bonking one of his 8 y/o child wives behind the camel-sheds (he had been showing her how one “tames” a camel).
The eyes. There you will see the man – Haemorrhóid – with his keen investigative reporter-type eyes, the grim determined mouth of the native Parisian intellectual who will brook no opposing opinion or argument, because he is always right. His statement is Law. This is not a man to be trifled with, despite the weak shoulders and proportionately big, balding head (though that could be a photographic illusion, I suppose). This man is different. This man is not safe. This man needs a shave, yes – but so what? This man does not want to feel inferior. He exudes “don’t mess with me” superiority. This man would never be in danger, because he is the danger. This man – this journalist – will listen to what you say, and then write it down.
One could naturally fall into those eyes and believe any conspiracy theory – Zionist, 911, alien, or otherwise. In fact I already do, and I only dared look into those eyes very briefly, for a fraction of a second – just the once. It is no wonder – and certainly no criticism and no crime – that @MrEcks apparently succumbed similarly. He is only human (I presume), after all.
Slartibartfarst’s comment should be Samizdata quote of the year, but I fear posting it twice might rip a hole in the very space/time continuum, so perhaps not.
Perry, I guess I just don’t understand your point.
If I, a State Bureaucrat, allow a murderer into my country, then, yes, I am a problem.
You seem to be saying that I am the ONLY problem.
I think the murderer is also a problem.
In terms of immediate consequences the murderer is a bigger problem than the bureaucrat.
In a similar way, civilization destroying Islam is, now that it is here, a bigger issue than the political cowardice/incompetence/corruption that brought it here. Dealing with Islam is the first priority. Assuming that Islam will be tamed once Islamic people taste Western civilisation is beyond naïve, it is stupid and negligent almost to the extent of the progressive left that brought it here.
Nope, sorry tomsmith, I do not share your mixture of admiration & fear for the power of Islam. It can be crushed culturally, politically and militarily with relative ease once the people preventing western civilisation from actually functioning are pushed aside, and very few of them are muslims.
No, not the only problem, just the only really-hard-to-defeat problem. Islam is the shark’s teeth, pull them out, they will just grow new ones, it’s what sharks do. Kill the shark, don’t worry so much about the teeth.
PdH–Didn’t say I endorsed all the authors views–I put it on for more background. People can have some of the truth while also believing a lot of nonsense as well.
His tripe about “Lamaist” terror against the lovely Chicoms who “liberated” Tibet didn’t sit well with me anyway.
But he supports the same picture of the Rohinghya as the previous writer.
PDH: I do not have any admiration for Islam. Any sensible person fears and hates that which hopes to destroy his way of life.
You are wrong about removing progressivism as the solution to this problem. It is far too deep seated to remove in the short space of time it will take for Islam to destroy Europe. Hoping that the current native European population of Europe will quickly re-discover classical liberalism/conservatism/libertarianism is again a naïve fantasy.
The demographics of Islam will reach a point in the West in tens of years that will make any current “cultural, political and military” options impossible. At the present time a proportion of the population holding at least some progressive and or left wing economic ideas still sees the threat of Islam. These people are what is known as the white working class. Islam is therefore a problem about which something can be done in the here and now provided we act quickly enough. Progressive ideology is not and is a cancer that will take much longer to cure. Since Islam will kill our civilisation much faster than progressivism will, that is the thing we must focus on removing first.
“It can be crushed culturally, politically and militarily with relative ease” Sorry, Perry, I don’t agree with any of that. I don’t think it can be “crushed” at all (if it could that would already have happened sometime in the last 1400 years when this era’s progressives weren’t ascendant). And even if it can, it most certainly will not be “with ease”; it will be a difficult, extremely bloody and well-nigh interminable fight. I’m not sure we in the US will have the stomach for it, but I am almost certain that Europe does not. You have already lost; what you’re experiencing now is the occupation and clean-up operation. Sorry.
I get the feeling that Perry isn’t being serious here? There is a feeling of arguing just for the sake of it?
I am sure you think I am delusional, but I think the same of you, I truly do. I am talking about Islam in the West btw, I am unconcerned about Islam anywhere else.
Which cannot and will not be done because progressivism is what is preventing the rabid Islamic poodle from being kicked, so you really do have this arse-about-face.
Perry, how can libertarianism (or the basic Western Enlightenment viewpoint) confront Islam? Wouldn’t that require abandoning the concept of freedom of religion, not to mention free travel across borders? One huge problem is that Islam is not just a religion, it’s a political ideology, and that political ideology is inextricably embedded in the Quran. To object to political Islam is to object to the truth of Islam, according to the devout.
I see Islam as a fiendishly clever Good Cop/Bad Cop routine. The Good Cops are the moderates, the unobjectionable, the nice doctors and the guys running the kebab shops. “It’s cruel and unfair to object to their presence in your country!” The Bad Cops are the purists, the fanatics, and terrorists. We’re supposed to listen to the Good Cops, and do what they say, but the cops are all on the same side, and have the same agenda. (Although there are naive Good Cops who might regret it later.) And it’s utterly impossible to separate the two groups, when a Good Cop can change into a Bad Cop (or vice-versa) at any time, and when Good Cops might have kids who become Bad Cops.
Ah, there’s the difference.
But . . .
If I have a wasps’ nest on my porch, I can make sure my screens are tight and in good repair, and warn everyone to keep the doors closed, and caulk up all of the holes in the eaves they might wander through, and keep a swatter in my living room, and keep up the effort until the nest dies. Hopefully, I’ll get them all before I get stung.
Or I can just torch the nest.
You are just shouting la la la with your fingers in your ears now.
If the removal of progressivism from the Western political scene is the only way to stop the demographic disaster that is overtaking our societies, which will leave them fundamentally and irreversibly Islamified in 1-2 generations, then we are already finished.
The “poodle can be kicked” via populist movements that do not require a fundamental and very unlikely political upheaval in our societies.
I think you know this. Why it is impossible for you to admit it? Who knows.
Although I’m more pessimistic than PDH, I actually more or less find myself in agreement with what PDH is saying insofar as he is saying that for Islam to be defeated Progressivism must be expunged from within the West first.
Any society that reacts to its preteen girls being ripped to shreds by a bomb at an Arianna Grande concert with candle light vigils is fundamentally incapable of self-preservation, unfit to protect itself.
The Western world is spiritually lost and therefore politically Progressive and thus fundamentally incapable of acknowledging the nature of the threat of Islamism.
This is precisely correct. I’m afraid I increasingly think that key parts of the West (most of Europe) really are already finished no matter what anyone does.
Just in case I am wrong about that, though:
I increasingly suspect that the only hope for European Western civilization to prevail is for Islamic immigration into and effects on the West to rapidly accelerate and intensify over the next 2 or 3 decades- in order to cause a backlash that is.. kinetic in nature.
As things stand now, time is on the side of Islamists. If there is no conflict INSIDE of certain European countries soon then Islamism will demographically prevail in places like Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, France, UK, etc. The sooner conflict occurs the more likely the Islamists lose (meaning border walls, mass deportations, and banning both Sharia and the Koran).
Anyway, my prediction is that, as I’ve said before, India, Israel, Japan are the three main countries that will continue to preserve their own versions of Western civilization as Europe is demographically conquered by Islamism in the next century or so. This is because they have positive AFFIRMATIVE cultural identities. They are not spiritually progressive which is why they have either very strict immigration laws or robust birth rates.
Oh well.
Papaya,
That’s a pretty depressing little scenario you got about the cops there.
It wouldn’t be quite so depressing if it didn’t seem a pretty plausible metaphor for the Islamic Problem.
In other words, you put your point very well.
Yeah good luck with that when you have people with relativist progressivist world views controlling so many of the state’s institutions. If you think what you want can come about without a fundamental political upheaval, you are delusional.
Then Europe is finished, because that is not going to happen any time soon.
Not sure I agree about India because Islam is already there in huge numbers. They do understand the problem very well though, as we do not in Europe.
Israel with an Islamified West is in a horrible position. I guess what happens to the USA is essential from the point of view of Israel.
Japan I agree, a good model for survival.
For the people of Europe I guess that the US is the sensible destination to run to. Australia has the British thought disease and Muslim immigration ramping up- they are probably finished already. I have a fantasy that NZ might survive.
There is also Russia. Very vulnerable geographically and demographically but at least capable of action.
How do you suggest making this happen in the short amount of time available before demographics renders the question irrelevant?
PdH is right. The deep problem is not Islam or Moslems, it is the autoimmune disorder of progressives who think Western values require them to undermine Western civilization, who are so obsessed with White Guilt for historical acts of bigotry that they refuse to acknowledge any fault in non-whites today.
For an analogy: imagine a massive outbreak of salmonella and other food-borne diseases. Which would be the deep problem: the infecting bacteria, or a widespread, even fanatical insistence that washing food is Wrong (destroys vitamins, insults farmers, offends God or Nature)? What real good would it do to treat the symptoms in current victims while the process that causes the infections remains in operation?
Another possible progressive contribution to the demographic threat is the extremely low birth rates of Western Europeans. It is not because of Moslems that women in Italy, Spain, Germany, Poland, Romania, and Russia have fewer than 1.5 children each. The causes of this are very broad (birth rates are in dramatic decline almost everywhere, including the Middle East, and Korea, Taiwan, and Japan are very low too). But surely progressive attitudes regarding the role of women and toward families have much to do with it.
The middle (geographical) two-thirds of the USA (minus a few cities) is where the final stand will occur. The people there generally are not of the anti-Western progressive variety. They tend to be religious, family-oriented, capitalistic, charitable but not welfare-oriented, and in the last eight years have become woke in an almost libertarian sense. These are the people who elected Trump – not because of any love of Trump, but out of the realization that failing to elect him would be a final straw for the nation in which they still wish to live.
Through all of the travails Trump has gone through since his election, his popularity among these people hasn’t wavered. These are practical people who recognize that what they want is worth a long hard slog, and they’re not the type who will run from a fight. Islam may take our coasts, but it would be massacred inland.
Do you think from a purely tactical standpoint that a war without coastal access can be won?
Sure that is correct in terms of the root cause. But Islam is the thing that is directly threading the extinction of Weatern culture, no matter where it came from. And it will be Islam and not progressivism that we will have to fight physically when our societies start to collapse. Which will happen quickly. Progressivism cannot control Islam.
Should read threatening not threading above.
Sure. We’d be fighting the defensive war. And, we’d retain access to the Gulf of Mexico.
A murderer is always a problem*, and the State is also a problem most of the time – so, the dispute here is about which is the more pressing problem at the moment. I happen to think that when the State allows… no, invites potential murderers into your country as a matter of policy, rather than a one-off stupid mistake, and when it actively prevents you from objecting to that policy, or even from saying out-loud that at least some of the invitees in question may in fact be murderers, then that State is the most immediate and pressing problem. Be that as it may, I don’t think Perry is arguing that the murderer is no problem at all. *So having agreed on that, the next question is naturally ‘OK, so what do we do about that murderer then?’ It seems to me that there may be several solutions about which reasonable people can agree or disagree, but solutions that ultimately give more power to the same State that created and continues to create the problem in the first place cannot possibly be the optimal ones.
Mr Ed, September 13, 2017 at 8:29 pm: “It should be remembered (or rather, known) that the predominant ideology in post-independence Burma has been ‘the Burmese way to socialism‘.”
There was a coup in the 1988, when socialism was out of fashion in the wider world, that was nominally anti-socialist or at least for less of it. With coups of one general against another, the actual ideology of the eventual rulers can be unclear. So while you’re right they had plenty of it post-independence, it’s had its ups and downs since 88. I think we can safely say the country has not been well-run, whatever the rhetoric, though that too has had its relative ups and downs.
(Anyone whose knowledge of post-88 Burma exceeds my slender stock, please feel free to clarify and/or correct me.)
What Alisa said. As to what to do about it, I think the Czechs have that figured out.
The other Rob: yes, it seems that the Czechs have always had a rather healthy attitude towards guns. That said, from the article:
If that is in fact the case, then their solution is probably best suited for their situation, regardless of the background of the problematic demographic (I may be totally off the mark here, but I’m guessing that they have a similar number of just “regular” violent criminals). However, that approach may not suffice if the Czech government suddenly decides to go all Merkel so to speak, and flood the country with Muslim refugees. Right now though it sounds like their government is much less of a pressing problem than some other Western-European ones.
No argument there. Usually the best imperative to government is, get out of our way. But ultimately, you don’t want to merely trust that your door locks are effective. At some point you need to discourage the people who think they want to break in before they do.
And the Czechs make some great weapons.
Bobby b, I think we’d have the southern Atlantic coast, too: southern VA (possibly, because of the huge Navy ports there), NC (probably), SC, GA, and at least part of FL (to the extent FL is problematic that could apply to its Gulf coast, too). In other words, the old Confederacy. So yes, plenty of coastline, and a large number of the country’s best deep-water ports. (Plus much of its oil, too, but that’s another matter.)
Returning to the original post, it is my understanding that “Rohingya” is simply the Burmese word for “Bengali”. It’s equivalent to calling people “British” or “Dutch” (someone can correct me if that’s wrong). They are not some special sect within Islam; they are just ordinary Muslims who happen to come from a region of what is now Bangladesh. But by calling them “Rohingyas” the media (along with Muslim apologists and their useful idiot sycophants) clearly want us to infer that they are some unique and quirky sect which is only vaguely Muslim, such as the Kurds (for whom I actually do have great sympathy). But that is untrue. This implication is made even stronger when (as seems to be the usual case) they are referred to as “minority Rohingyas”. We in the west have all been sensitized to the (supposed) plight of oppressed “minorities”, whoever they may be, and that characterization plays directly upon our sympathies. But since Rohingyas are, in fact, merely garden-variety Muslims (and trespassers to boot), they should be treated as the cancer they are. Burma is doing precisely the right thing with respect to them, and we should all be doing our best to expose and correct the propaganda being spread by the media.
Alisa:
I don’t think anybody is suggesting that the current state will ever be able to solve this problem. Democratic politics is part of the cause of the problem, not its solution. The main thrust of action against the direct rather than the indirect problem in Europe is single issue populist movements that bypass the current state, or create such pressure on it that it must act in accordance with what people want.
Only narrowly focused populism can create this pressure and force this action. Libertarian arguments against the state will not change the status quo, and are completely inappropriate given the timescale of demographic change in Europe. When that change happens then all of these questions will be irrelevant. Of course populist movements are dangerous, but a roll of the dice is better than a slow death.
Laird:
What is the relative economic size/strength of the Union vs Confederate states these days?
I don’t know, tomsmith, but that’s not really a relevant question. First, we’re simply discussing the coastline controlled by the portion of the country which bobby b believes would mount the “final stand” in a battle against an Islamic takeover of the US. And that portion is much larger than the old CSA. I was merely using “the Confederacy” as a shorthand method of describing the coastline which would be within the control of that portion of the country, not to suggest that the Confederacy is ever going to “rise again” (in the words of the old song).
Tomsmith, I don’t disagree with anything in your reply to me; my only point is that when faced with a complex problem, it is crucial to identify all of its several aspects correctly and constantly keep them in mind, even when temporarily focusing on a single and most-immediate one. Otherwise, one may be in danger of treating cancer with aspirin.
Maybe it’s because they are wary of the monsters in their swamps.
This may sound a little crazy, but I think that I see an opportunity here.
Americans get murdered in Bongo Bongo land (which includes Europe) every day. So why not pick a country with a dead American in it and nuke their capital city?
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the entire world knew not to fuck with the USA because we would come to your house and nuke you. We are still the only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons in anger.
Might not hurt if the world got a reminder of that.
After 9/11, I would have at least told the Saudis that we would nuke Mecca the next time something like that happened.
Alisa, I agree. In this case I think that the populist route vs Islam is necessary (due to the nature and timescale of the demographic threat), and also the only way that the deep state can be damaged at this point in time. Philosophical arguments about freedom are not going to cut it, and sitting on our hands talking is going to result in unwindable demographic catastrophe for Europe and the Europeans, including the British.
Narrowly focused populism has broad appeal by definition and is the only way to get this ball rolling.