Christians, Muslims, Tribalism

How the Church engineered paganism out of Western Europeans and Christianity into them:
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/whatever-happened-to-european-tribes/


The rather impressive theological reasoning behind de-tribing the peoples:
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/st-augustine-and-st-thomas-aquinas/


Inbreeding in Christian countries vs. Muslim countries today (I commented on this one belatedly):
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/inbreeding-and-natl-iq/


It seems that the Arabs have infected most of the Muslim world with their form of tribalism, since Arabs always have had comparatively high status among Muslims and often were emulated. Consequent upon this, tribally organized societies have difficulty forming nation-states. Their peoples' loyalties are elsewise engaged: by strong family, clan, and tribal identities. Islam, being a warlike religion, does little in practice to counter this tendency and unite its adherents, except when opportunity arises for jihad against infidels. Such fine social subdivisions also diminish potential for commercial development: the wealthiest Islamic country lacking major oil resources is probably Turkey or Malaysia. Both have Mexican levels of per capita GDP, and only attain that height due to multiple special advantages. The Turks are at the crossroads between Europe and Asia, are NATO members, have some of the lowest inbreeding rates of Muslim nations, were unusually secular in their governance for 80 years, haven't fought a significant war is almost 100 years, and, until recently, were making aggressive efforts to gain admittance to the EU. The Malaysians have a large non-Muslim Chinese minority (20+%) who develop and sustain its commerce, enough oil/natural gas production to supply itself and do some exporting, a geographic position in a peaceful and rapidly growing part of the world, and a tradition of moderate Islamic beliefs.

Insights into the Abrahamic Faiths

http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2015/02/16/jihad-and-self-sacrifice-in-islam/

Reformation of Islam is impossible. Jihad is the meaning of Islam. Sacrifice is requisite to all the Abrahamic faiths. For Muslims the form of the sacrifice is jihad. The Muslim sacrifices himself and thereby proves his faith. For Christians and Jews, the sacrifice is vicarious--it is ritualized, as in the Eucharist. But, Allah will not accept merely symbolic sacrifice. He requires the blood of the believer. All this is made quite clear in the Koran. The manifold encroachments of modernity incite the faithful of the Ummah to enact the Koranic command: jihad. This will continue until the Muslim world "burns to the socket."

Unshacklings

Beware the website, it's a bit unstable and slow, but Spengler's worth reading. He's a former Reagan official, author, music critic, I-Banker, and Jewish "religious nationalist" supporter of Israel.
http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2015/01/08/what-can-france-do-now/?singlepage=true

Of course, all of western Europe face much the same problem as France. But, the integration experiment looks ever more dubious even to conventional conservatives. To those of us who understand something of human biological diversity (HBD), it never even rose to the level of dubiety: it was a bad game at inception. Algerians, Moroccans, Somalis--and all the rest--are fundamentally discordant with Europeans at the biological substrate. Their intelligence levels and their personalities are quite different--and for purposes of what we recognize as productive civilization--markedly inferior. The Islamic factor is the enzyme catalyzing disaster out of this contrast of substrates. The conventionalists, Left and Right, only see this enzyme, Islam, and wonder how it could turn so vicious. They imagine themselves, in a fit of empathy, as converts to Islam, and perceive only the most reasonable aspects of the religion and culture. But, they are not North Africans nor Arabs nor Blacks. The enzyme reacts differently upon their substrate, not positively to be sure (or we might see rather more converts in the intellectual classes), but not disastrously either. Their attempt at empathy fails because they refuse The Knowledge of evolved differences between human groups. They lose themselves in evasive mazes of circular rhetoric and pathological social status competitions with their nihilist peers.


For a bit more of an HBD focus, this young Irish American woman writes well and extensively about the variety of human types:
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/category/what-is-human-biodiversity/
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/category/diversity-doesnt-work/

The Curse of Islam

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.


No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

Sir Winston Churchill, The River War



A British politician was arrested about a year ago for reading precisely this prophetic and diagnostic passage in the public square. He was charged with incitement of racial/religious hatred. Islam does indeed disintegrate civilizations when it overtakes them. It knows only how to spend cultural capital, not how to perpetuate it--certainly a creative culture is inconceivable within the Koranic interpretation of life. The celebrants of "Islamic Golden Ages" fail to apprehend the causes of such periods: they only occur when Muslims vanquish superior civilizations and ride their cultural momentum for a few generations, until virtually the entire population converts to Islam and their vitality is sapped. This is the main reason Europe is more endangered than America. The conversionary, goal-oriented weight of Muslim numbers poses a much more precipitous threat than America's Mestizos do--since, like the blacks, they lack the capacity for group autonomy and predictably suffer themselves to become mere puppets of the Left.

Alternatives to Submission

 Larry Auster was, I think, one of the most intelligent of the paleo-conservative Christian-slanted political writers. Here are 2 brief articles on Islam:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/004636.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003853.html


His whole archive of articles and essays repays attention.

Most of his Islam articles:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011473.html
His central analysis/advice on how the West ought to deal with Islam:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006250.html


Auster also recommends this book on the subject:
http://musulmanbook.blogspot.com/
On the main page is a useful summary of the book.

Anarcho-Tyranny Unleashed

This is an especially disgusting type of crime. Its enablers (police, media, politicians, ngo's) will suffer not the slightest punishment. The few perpetrators so far convicted received light sentences.

On the theory and practice of anarcho-tyranny: http://www.vdare.com/articles/anarcho-tyranny-where-multiculturalism-leads

Overview articles on Rotherham:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11066244/Rotherham-is-not-an-isolated-incident.html
http://mangans.blogspot.hk/2014/08/rotherham.html

Top feminist websites' (non)-coverage of Rotherham: http://www.kidstrangelove.com/2014/08/29/the-rotherham-child-sex-abuse-scandal-and-the-american-media-coverage-in-pictures/

Some thoughts on the Rotherham atrocities from Nick Land and commenters (the "Cathedral" is the Leftist media-academic complex, those who lead the Leftist religion):

Nick Land:

The BBC fog-machine at work on the UK child-predation story:

Child sexual exploitation is happening in a “number of towns” in different parts of the country, according to the author of a damning report into abuse in Rotherham. … According to an estimate from the Children’s Commissioner for England three years ago, 2,409 children were identified as victims of exploitation by gangs over a 14-month period from 2010-11 …
 I’m going to assume that all the fanatically unspecified “men” (or “males”) involved are Muslims of Pakistani origin (abusing white children), unless presented with definite evidence to the contrary. Any other default would be an act of cognitive collaboration with Britain’s sordid little branch-operation of the Cathedral, and we’ve now seen with stark clarity what that enables.

Does the progressive media really think it can de-realize this festival of cultural ruin with a standard inattention protocol? If so, it has to count as an extraordinary peak hubris moment. Perhaps the left is structurally incapable of preventing itself from pushing things over the brink of catastrophe. It always has to take that one additional step, and it has no sense at all of how to back down.

There have to be a lot of people in the UK right now who would be delighted to see the media establishment strung up from lamp-posts, with panic and defection rife in journalistic ranks. It’s surely not impossible that the pattern now jutting into hideous visibility in Britain will evoke a disturbing sense of recognition elsewhere, possibly throughout the Anglosphere. As far as core Cathedral operating procedures are concerned, this has to be a period of (possibly unprecedented) vulnerability. As a source of regime threatening irritability, the Rotherham syndrome is the droit du seigneur of the new nobility — even among a pitifully broken people, it pushes some deeply atavistic buttons. Lies, sexual exploitation, and foreign invasion — who’d want to be PR manager for this cocktail of native degradation?


Commenters:

Scientism: I think perhaps we, from what I assume are our fairly “privileged” positions (not having been “vulnerable youth”, but I only speak for myself here), don’t quite grasp how insidious the Cathedral is. This looks to us like the Cathedral coming apart, but consider that what we have here is a system that managed to train a succession of civil servants to overlook abuse. Not just one or two, but seemingly every last person involved with the council, the police force and the charities, was trained to overlook this kind of abuse, for 16 years.

How can such an outcome be anything but the Cathedral firing on all cylinders, doing what it was designed to do? The immediate reality of the Cathedral for most of us is, essentially, having been misled by the media, having woken up and realised we’ve been lied to, perhaps knowing we’ve lost much of our culture. In the future, we expect some kind of collapse, we think things will get worse. But that’s in the future. On the other hand, the reality of the Cathedral for the civil servants, activists, etc, who are part of it is: Pakistani men raping little white girls while everybody looks the other way. The reality for the media: not reporting on these events, because it might make white people angry at a minority group. That’s their main concern, in both cases, not the abuse. That’s their daily lived experience: being complicit in atrocities while simultaneously being enraged by trivialities.

This is what these guys do all day and have been doing for years. A little scandal isn’t going to change the way they do things. The only thing that’s going to end this is economic collapse or war.


Kgaard: I do not see economic collapse, and I don’t see war coming to the UK’s shores anytime soon. So the existing system continues as is, I guess. When you look to the top of the power structure, the logic of it all is crystal clear: Big business wants the bodies to offset all the babies not being created by native Brits. Labour, meanwhile, wants the immigrants because immigrants vote Labour. So it’s a pact made in hell — and the same pact has been made in the US and much of continental Europe. There is no stopping it that I can see. Who stops it? Who can withstand the combined force of the ENTIRE power structure coming down on their head — from the political left to the right?

Scientism: It’s essentially a set of pernicious feedback loops. The civil servants, the media and a large portion of the British public are experiencing a severe belief bias effect where all evidence confirms their Leftist outlook. Every atrocity is cause to double down on their anti-racist efforts. These efforts protect and enable the gangs and cause more atrocities. This serves to confirm the horrors of systemic racism in the mind of the anti-racist. When the natives try to organise against the protected immigrants, they’re merely seen as racism incarnate, again confirming the Leftist outlook. It’s difficult to see any end to it. These aren’t rational people; they’re caught in a system that develops and maintains a kind of delusive belief system. With the media and most university educated members of the public complicit, there’s little hope of exposure. The outrage of the uneducated masses merely confirms their racist nature. Nationalist groups inevitably find solace in anti-system symbolism and end up goose-stepping down the street, again conforming the worldview of the anti-racists. Everybody has a role to play and everything confirms Leftism! How do you escape that?

Islam and the West

http://www.tnr.com/book/review/citizen-islam-zeyno-baran

The link is to a review of a book, Citizen Islam: The Future of Muslim Integration in the West, by Zeyno Baran, on Muslim citizens in Western countries. It's a sharp, concise, excellent review, worth reading. The reviewer wrote a highly regarded book on this subject a couple of years past, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West. Both authors agree that the most essential question the rise of the Muslim population puts before us is what form of Islam these people will ascribe to. I agree with this assessment, though in those countries with relatively modest Muslim populations the issue of the magnitude of future Muslim immigration is almost as important. The politically correct view, of course, in America and Europe, is that mainstream Islam is distinct from "Islamism" (the interpretation that Islamic values and rules ought to prevail in the political sphere).

That the priests or imams should want mastery accords with the natural order of things. Why shouldn't the arbiters of the ultimate things requite their pious followers with the gift of effectual earthly guidance?

“Islamism shares the most fundamental aim of Islam and all religions,” Baran writes, “to bring the world closer to God.” In so saying, she removes us from the cocoon of cant that swaddles most public—and all governmental—discussion of Islam’s role in terrorism.

The motive force behind Islamic terrorism is thus conceived by its practitioners as transcending the civil laws of merely secular governments. And, since its inception, the Quran has seemed to certain numbers of its adherents interpretable in this direction. If confined to a few extremists or to marginal lands, this might be of minor consequence, and it has been little more than a nuisance through most of Islamic history. However, massive Muslim immigration into the West has changed things, and rendered this disease much more contagious, if not also more virulent.

Islamists are, by definition, politicized Muslims. They are better at politics than their apolitical coreligionists. European officials made a mistake in the 1980s and ’90s, when they “granted asylum to many immigrants who presented far more of a threat to democratic rule than the regimes they had fled.” The core of Baran’s book is her description of the tactics by which Islamists co-opted, infiltrated, bamboozled, and overwhelmed Muslim institutions of long standing. Islamists generally preferred subverting existing bodies to setting up their own, Baran writes, because it “required less effort and offered greater recruitment possibilities.” Her account of such subversion will remind readers of the history of Communists in the trade-union movement. As Baran shows, boards of directors staffed with doddering old-country patriarchs do not stand a chance against young, modern, Internet- and media-savvy “professional Muslims.”

One might also analogize Islamists to a special interest group in politics. Though constituting a small number, they care about their monomania more than the great mass of the polity, and often use their focus to achieve goals against the interest of the nation. This looks to be something of a vicious circle. Revolutions, though, tend to burn themselves out as the youthful vanguard becomes less youthful and settles heavily into power. But, by a similar process of energetic youth overcoming apathetic age, the nonpolitical version of Islam is losing power also in many Muslim nations. Turkey is cited as a clear case of this. It has proceeded in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran--and the Arab Spring may yet prove another step in furtherance of this trend.

The threat of Islamism in the near and medium term arises from its manifest terrorist tendencies. Any irrational belief system, including any religion, may become dangerous. "The problem is that religion itself is a conveyor belt to radicalism in this way." The remedy for this, the action Western governments ought to undertake, according to Baran, is this:

  They should “shift their current focus from countering extremist violence to preventing extremism from taking hold in the first place.” The strategy she suggests might indeed be a better one. But there are two reasons it cannot be carried out. One is that Americans are too frightened of being disciplined and punished for breaches of political correctness to discuss honestly any aspect of any policy touching on Islam. Even this term—“political correctness”—does not do justice to the Zhdanovite lockdown that the government enforces when it comes to discussing Islam.

Apparently, even the Ft. Hood massacre of American soldiers by a radicalized Islamist soldier was dismissed by DOD as unrelated to Islamism.

Secondly, Americans don’t know Islam well enough. The distinction between “Islamists who renounce violence” (the people we are empowering now) and the “moderate Muslims who reject Islamism” (the people Baran would like us to empower)—these distinctions might be meaningful for a literary Turk with a good Koranic education. They will be lost on a galoot congressman from the mountain West who has never met a Muslim. And to draw such distinctions in the first place would reveal what a big, intransigent problem traditionalist Islam poses for Western societies. It is a problem that already has a long record of forcing those societies to weigh their commitment to diversity against their commitment to freedom.

We observe all this with a complacency born of the amateurism and incompetence of our domestic Islamic foes. In many Western nations, including America, their numbers are too small still to present a great danger. And the problem may well, by a variety of possible mechanisms, be self-correcting. The two most likely forms of this are the senescence of the revolutionaries or a change in attitude in Western nations should the threat become grave. That said, I see no benefit for the West from continued large scale Muslim immigration. Also, the radicals ought to be deported. We do not need the distraction and the drain on our powers political Islam involves--certes we do not benefit this way. Proliferation of WMDs, China's rise, and socialism-induced internal decay are quite a sufficient platefull of problems.

The European Spirit and the Jews

The hatred Hitler inflicted upon Europe and which it has ever since redounded upon his dreams, the nanny-state weakness engendered by post-war prosperity, the psychological damage of the most terrible wars known to man, the fear of Jewish superiority and otherness, the complacency toward a Muslim population implicitly presumed to be inferior, the outgrowth of political correctness as a self-lacerating ideology created in response to prior evil ideologies (esp. Nazism), the nature of all ideologies and ideologues to privilege loyalty in thought and speech over truth, the failure to understand that Islam is a far more powerful and implacable ideology than "political correctness" can hope to be--in fact, the most powerful ideology Europe has ever experienced, more powerful even than Christianity ever was----All of these factors play a role in current European developments.

Europeans feared the Jews as aliens from the time of their arrival and applied to them special restrictions and, after the first few generations of occasional mixing, Christians and Jews lived as separate populations. Due to the nature of the specialized roles (esp. trade and finance) which the Jews came to monopolize, shrewdness was a characteristic more useful to Jews than to Gentiles. Also, more than the Christians, the Jews in their long exile valued book learning and rewarded the best scholars. The high value their circumstances and culture placed on shrewdness and on learning probably caused a virtuous circle in which the most successful, in terms of these characteristics, obtained more wealth and produced more children. This is called eugenics, here in the form of breeding for high intelligence. Not only are the Jews vastly overrepresented in their intellectual achievements vis-à-vis the Muslims, they have, in proportion to population, at least a 10-1 advantage over Gentiles in terms of the academic Nobels and the Fields Medals, and the more cognitively challenging the field the greater their relative advantage. Here’s a recent  paper laying out the possibility of eugenic evolutionary pressures for Ashkenazi Jews:
http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub.pdf


It is natural to fear the alien. But, when that alien is superior to you genetically and culturally--tolerance of such circumstances among the general populace is unlikely to last. Europe chose the worst solution to the social tension that arose as Jews rose to the top in the socioeconomic competition—which happened in proportion to their escape from the traditional restrictions on their activities, beginning in the eighteenth century. The best solution, perhaps, among those within the realm of human possibility, was one suggested by Nietzsche in the 1880s: the aristocratic and officer classes of the nations of Europe (and presumably other elite elements of Gentile society) should strategically intermarry with the Jews to engender the “good Europeans” who would lead a united Europe. The risk would have been the demise of Jewry as a race and culture distinct from any other. In any case, the Europeans did not have the courage for this grand vision of the future. They succumbed to petty, mindless nationalism and narrow, often brutal ideological dungeons for generations, then, post-Hitler, turned to a suicidal pacifism as an ineffectual and equally stupid repentance for the past. Nor did they consider calling a halt to their mad fantasy quest to undo the past after renouncing the potentially noble endeavor of colonialism (the end of which produced quite catastrophic results, perhaps as bad, in terms of human suffering, as the world wars which were the proximate cause of the pullback), instead they pressed on, and, entangled in their delusions, they begged, in action and not only in words, for the opportunity to submit to a reverse colonialism. They place a higher priority on attempting to atone for the past and on massaging their consciences than on actually enacting the good in life. And Hitler’s ghost laughs at these weak fools who still cower in his shadow and thereby prepare the way for a worthy successor, another visionary of the  Götterdämmerung or a conquering caliph.

How could this happen? By what perverse logic are these people guided? For centuries Europe's will to power in both the spiritual and material realms has slowly subsided in face of the combined assaults of philosophical skepticism (at least, among the elite) and increasing sensitivity to pain and to fear (characteristic of the people at large, who became, as a united conforming mass, politically significant as democracy spread). Having no intellectual elite outside of the close-minded priestly class, Islam does not suffer the first philosophical weakness, and its economic primitivism and "eye for an eye" moral-religious code keep it relatively safe from oversensitivity. Result: the Muslim will to power sees Europe as ripe for submission. It seems that the human psychological equation dictates that more stupidity and more brutality produce more will to power.

Thus, having destroyed their great chance to be led by the Jews, an authentically superior people, or by a superior mixed race, like Nietzsche’s good Europeans, the bad Europeans come instead to power and proceed to prostrate themselves before an inferior people.

Yet, just as the world wars and the Holocaust revolutionized European psychology into the submissive form we find today, there remains the possibility of another revolution. Perhaps an excess of Muslim brutality will revive Europe, sharpening its intelligence (perhaps from an exodus of Israeli Jews to newly welcoming parts of Europe), strengthening it by exposure to inescapable brutality, and replacing the weak-born and birthing quality of sensitivity with the strength-engendered and engendering quality of generosity.

Jewish Measures

I just read yet another Jewish editorialist who provided a retread of the usual Zionist delusionalism. I will not link it. There is no thinking there--it's just a brief repetition of other people's ideas, without regard for whether they possess any justification--some do, some don't, but the putative author has no sense of where the sense may lie. This fellow stands manifestly unworthy of the great Jewish tradition.

 

Since the Jews do not suffer a proportionate burden of stupidity, I speculatively attribute these frequent excresences of tribalist prejudice and arbitrary historicizing to several conditions:

 

First, their Arab enemies are inbred and organically stupid people under sway of a comparatively childish conception of religion which reinforces their stupidity and breeds brutality--an enemy utterly lacking any living intellectual tradition--this reality has, through long interaction, helped to debase the moral and intellectual standards the Israeli Jews brought with them from Europe (having, ironically, invented many of these standards themselves in the first instance millenia past, introduced them to Europe, and furthered their development over centuries against much barbaric resistance). Brutality is contagious. Hitler infected the Jews, who brutally founded their Zionist state. Thus were their victims infected, who thereafter infected the remnant of the Arab world. But, the Arabs, with their inbred stupidity and martial religion, were primed for the infection to a degree that the Jews were not. In addition to the neurological difference, there is a difference in kind, culturally, between these two civilizations. The Arabs, as a civilization, did not develop. Their civilization still revolves around a medieval text whose quality can easily be discerned by reading the sections that provide a reinterpretation of the Judaic and Christian holy books. It simplifies to the point of being cartoonish. Not only was Mohammed unable to invent such stories himself, he could not even apprehend the meaning of the stories the great Jewish prophets and apostles had handed down. And yet this is the One Book of a billion Muslims! The Jews, fortunately, have not only their brilliant holy texts, which had the capacity to digest and reconceive virtually all preceding religious texts, as a powerful foundation for a contributive culture--but, also, vitally, the ability in the post-Prophetic age to create or assimilate all the other books of the world. The Jews not only invented monotheism, they play the game better than any of their successors. And to this creative power they added an enormous assimilative capacity. No useful source of intellectual power has escaped them. No useful source has ever found the Arabs. The Jews absorbed Plato, the greatest thinker of the ancient world, then merged him with various Jewish traditions to create Christianity. After their invention metamorphosed into unexpected barbarity (unexpected, most particularly, because Christianity, unlike Islam, or even Judaism itself, is a fundamentally idealistic religion), they carefully preserved their traditions and found ways to survive its hostility, even when domiciled in lands under its dominion. And, by way of encouraging the development of a Christian civilization with such means as they had available, their principle contribution was as savvy moneylenders who helped to supplant feudal relationships with economic (capitalist) relationships as the source of power (military, governmental, social) in the Western world. This transformation bred capitalism and was one of the seeds of the industrial revolution. Also, their preserved traditions, which included valuable non-Jewish ancient texts, provided material for the gentiles to work upon and build into the Renaissance. And the Renaissance led to the Protestant Reformation, which led to the Enlightenment, which further contributed to the gathering force of capitalism, a force which finally reached the threshold of necessary factors to produce the industrial revolution, whose success then permitted the social luxuries of democracy and individual liberty. Of course, direct participation in most of these successive, cumulative developments was prevented by the feudal and religious restrictions imposed upon them during this period. Only in the 18th and 19th centuries did gentiles begin to permit Jews full rights--and, concurrently, the Jews grew more secular and inclined to integration. The Muslim world, however, not only failed to contribute to any of these developments in the advancement of civilization, they also failed even to experience any of these things--to this day. Their reality is medieval, which is to say, barbaric.

Second, the Jews in the last 70 years have suffered an unending series of major traumas, which has caused them to adopt a posture toward the "unchosen" people defensive and paranoid (analogous to Stalin's Russia, which, having once been attacked by Hitler, decided thereafter that all other nations were enemies by definition, and treated them accordingly, and suffered accordingly). 

 

All of this by way of a meditation on the future of the Jews, who boast one of the most glorious histories, and one of the most tragic, of any people.

Tyrants of the Soul

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/bc0129ll.html The suggestion that we treat Sharia as a "dangerous totalitarian ideology" just as we did communism in the Cold War is one I support. Unfortunately, I do not see much progress in the work of liberating the Muslim mind from the Koran's medieval mindset.

Another Shameless Retreat

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-445979/Teachers-drop-Holocaust-avoid-offending-Muslims.html But, doesn't this policy offend everyone else? Oh, that's right, only the opinions of those who explicitly threaten violence when they are offended count. If the Muslims in the West ever became competent at terrorism (so far it has been a consistent case of ad hoc amateurism with far more failures than successes), the West would finally be forced to undertake a rational response to the threat--it would export all the conspirators and their sympathizers back to their home countries. This should be done now, but without a strong spur it will not happen. And this spur may never come--they may fail to achieve competence as a result of their infatuation with irrationality (otherwise known as their worship of Mohammed's dreams).

Criminal Psychology

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/weekinreview/04kimmelman.html?ref=weekinreview The competition in Europe today is to determine which nation is the most passive/submissive. The Muslims think this fits well with their competition to determine who is the most dominant.

Palestine

http://www.factsandlogic.org/outstanding_hoffer.html

This Jewish-American "thinker" has a point about the refugee issue, but not an especially strong point. His examples of refugees who did not become problems are examples of refugees who had no religious stake in their homeland, only an economic stake. By contrast, the Palestinians, and all Muslims, deem certain sites in Palestine holy. Forcible removal from habitation in a holy land incites holy war. Times past, the Christian nations also fought for control of Palestine because of its religious significance. Religion is the difference. It is the reason the Jews chose Palestine to establish a new nation and it is the principal reason for continued Palestinian resistance to the state of Israel. And religion is not rational, has only the most tainted relationship to logic and reason. Therefore, this holy war for Palestine persists without benefit to either party as the imaginary tribal deities of these madmen, Yahweh and Allah, smile malignantly from above, and their puppets enact the ancient tribal morality play of "an eye for an eye." To no end and without end.

These are two religions with essentially the same moral code: old Mohammed, the thief, stole this, amongst so much else, from the Torah, stupefied and corrupted it, then jammed it into his "divine dictations", Al Quran. The clear fundamental difference is in the relative advancement of their civilisations, which corresponds with their tolerance for cruelty and brutality--the Muslims have a higher tolerance level mainly because their civilisation is still organized along pre-industrial lines, creating both material and mental poverty. But, Israel is no innocent in this game, merely less brutal than its enemies--it owes its inception to a spasm of war and terror against both the British colonial authorities and the native Palestinians.

For the rest, this article is not visionary but idiotic: typical Jewish self-pity and self-aggrandizement, adorned with lies and deceptions. Apparently, the "chosen people" want to be permitted their own "necessary evils" without reproach from others, while passing contemptuous moral judgment upon these same others: a patent double standard.

I'm inclined to believe that any intelligent Jew would be embarassed by this crude propaganda, possibly the worst I've ever read on the Israel issue.

The Fifth Column

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/books/review/Ajami-t.html?pagewanted=all
This sounds like a useful book, and timely. Some good lines from Ajami's review: "In its original habitat, there could be an honest reckoning with Islam. Men and women could wrestle with the limits it places on them; they would weigh, in that timeless manner, the balance between fidelity to the faith and the yearning for freedom. But it isn’t easy in Amsterdam or Stockholm. There, the faith is identity, and the faith is complete and sharpened like a weapon."

Europeans Muslims have a separate identity and want a separate identity. Like any proud, yet beleaguered culture, they want to play the master. And their need for mastery steels the will, and the steel scythe of it harvests for their spirits growing contempt for the wavering realms of Christendom. Mastery waits only upon their achievement of full consciousness of their victims' will to submit.

Rules and Exceptions

As a libertarian, I generally favor granting individuals freedom to engage in any activities that do not harm others. However, if a cohesive, illiberal theocratic faction emerges within society and grows ever more powerful, it may come to threaten this libertarian regime by virtue of the very freedom which gave it space to grow in the first instance. Consequently, we have a strong argument for designating this group's philosophy or religion, as practiced, an activity that harms others. Certain regulations could then be imposed to defang the serpent. Europe has yet to recognize what it is that has entered its garden of peace.

Full of Passionate Intensity

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120450617910806563.html
The margins of the Islamic world have been radicalized by their obvious lack of power. Also, their religious leaders fear that the creep of secularization evident in most of the world will progress into Islamic lands and minds. I view this, on the whole, as a defensive response--though, of course, some of Europe's naturalized Islamic radicals overtly seek to expand the "caliphate" throughout Europe as well. Unfortunately, given the demographic explosion underway in most Islamic nations, plus their retrograde political institutions and economic policies, the number of potential recruits for such jihadism is likely to continue to increase. This article is mainly an anecdotal diagnosis (and thus leaves open the question of how broad its applicability may be), and it fails to offer any solutions. The solution is to address the demographic, political, and economic problems that seed the deathly garden. Or simply contain Islamic problems within Islamic lands--and stay out.