Fire Hydrant of Freedom
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: G M on November 02, 2006, 08:51:01 AM
-
October 20, 2006
The future belongs to Islam
The Muslim world has youth, numbers and global ambitions. The West is growing old and enfeebled, and lacks the will to rebuff those who would supplant it. It's the end of the world as we've known it. An excerpt from 'America Alone'.
MARK STEYN
Sept. 11, 2001, was not "the day everything changed," but the day that revealed how much had already changed. On Sept. 10, how many journalists had the Council of American-Islamic Relations or the Canadian Islamic Congress or the Muslim Council of Britain in their Rolodexes? If you'd said that whether something does or does not cause offence to Muslims would be the early 21st century's principal political dynamic in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and the United Kingdom, most folks would have thought you were crazy. Yet on that Tuesday morning the top of the iceberg bobbed up and toppled the Twin Towers.
This is about the seven-eighths below the surface -- the larger forces at play in the developed world that have left Europe too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia and that call into question the future of much of the rest of the world. The key factors are: demographic decline; the unsustainability of the social democratic state; and civilizational exhaustion.
Let's start with demography, because everything does:
If your school has 200 guys and you're playing a school with 2,000 pupils, it doesn't mean your baseball team is definitely going to lose but it certainly gives the other fellows a big starting advantage. Likewise, if you want to launch a revolution, it's not very likely if you've only got seven revolutionaries. And they're all over 80. But, if you've got two million and seven revolutionaries and they're all under 30 you're in business.
For example, I wonder how many pontificators on the "Middle East peace process" ever run this number:
The median age in the Gaza Strip is 15.8 years.
Once you know that, all the rest is details. If you were a "moderate Palestinian" leader, would you want to try to persuade a nation -- or pseudo-nation -- of unemployed poorly educated teenage boys raised in a UN-supervised European-funded death cult to see sense? Any analysis of the "Palestinian problem" that doesn't take into account the most important determinant on the ground is a waste of time.
Likewise, the salient feature of Europe, Canada, Japan and Russia is that they're running out of babies. What's happening in the developed world is one of the fastest demographic evolutions in history: most of us have seen a gazillion heartwarming ethnic comedies -- My Big Fat Greek Wedding and its ilk -- in which some uptight WASPy type starts dating a gal from a vast loving fecund Mediterranean family, so abundantly endowed with sisters and cousins and uncles that you can barely get in the room. It is, in fact, the inversion of the truth. Greece has a fertility rate hovering just below 1.3 births per couple, which is what demographers call the point of "lowest-low" fertility from which no human society has ever recovered. And Greece's fertility is the healthiest in Mediterranean Europe: Italy has a fertility rate of 1.2, Spain 1.1. Insofar as any citizens of the developed world have "big" families these days, it's the anglo democracies: America's fertility rate is 2.1, New Zealand a little below. Hollywood should be making My Big Fat Uptight Protestant Wedding in which some sad Greek only child marries into a big heartwarming New Zealand family where the spouse actually has a sibling.
As I say, this isn't a projection: it's happening now. There's no need to extrapolate, and if you do it gets a little freaky, but, just for fun, here goes: by 2050, 60 per cent of Italians will have no brothers, no sisters, no cousins, no aunts, no uncles. The big Italian family, with papa pouring the vino and mama spooning out the pasta down an endless table of grandparents and nieces and nephews, will be gone, no more, dead as the dinosaurs. As Noel Coward once remarked in another context, "Funiculi, funicula, funic yourself." By mid-century, Italians will have no choice in the matter.
Experts talk about root causes. But demography is the most basic root of all. A people that won't multiply can't go forth or go anywhere. Those who do will shape the age we live in.
Demographic decline and the unsustainability of the social democratic state are closely related. In America, politicians upset about the federal deficit like to complain that we're piling up debts our children and grandchildren will have to pay off. But in Europe the unaffordable entitlements are in even worse shape: there are no kids or grandkids to stick it to.
You might formulate it like this:
Age + Welfare = Disaster for you;
Youth + Will = Disaster for whoever gets in your way.
By "will," I mean the metaphorical spine of a culture. Africa, to take another example, also has plenty of young people, but it's riddled with AIDS and, for the most part, Africans don't think of themselves as Africans: as we saw in Rwanda, their primary identity is tribal, and most tribes have no global ambitions. Islam, however, has serious global ambitions, and it forms the primal, core identity of most of its adherents -- in the Middle East, South Asia and elsewhere.
Islam has youth and will, Europe has age and welfare.
We are witnessing the end of the late 20th- century progressive welfare democracy. Its fiscal bankruptcy is merely a symptom of a more fundamental bankruptcy: its insufficiency as an animating principle for society. The children and grandchildren of those fascists and republicans who waged a bitter civil war for the future of Spain now shrug when a bunch of foreigners blow up their capital. Too sedated even to sue for terms, they capitulate instantly. Over on the other side of the equation, the modern multicultural state is too watery a concept to bind huge numbers of immigrants to the land of their nominal citizenship. So they look elsewhere and find the jihad. The Western Muslim's pan-Islamic identity is merely the first great cause in a world where globalized pathologies are taking the place of old-school nationalism.
For states in demographic decline with ever more lavish social programs, the question is a simple one: can they get real? Can they grow up before they grow old? If not, then they'll end their days in societies dominated by people with a very different world view.
Which brings us to the third factor -- the enervated state of the Western world, the sense of civilizational ennui, of nations too mired in cultural relativism to understand what's at stake. As it happens, that third point is closely related to the first two. To Americans, it doesn't always seem obvious that there's any connection between the "war on terror" and the so-called "pocketbook issues" of domestic politics. But there is a correlation between the structural weaknesses of the social democratic state and the rise of a globalized Islam. The state has gradually annexed all the responsibilities of adulthood -- health care, child care, care of the elderly -- to the point where it's effectively severed its citizens from humanity's primal instincts, not least the survival instinct. In the American context, the federal "deficit" isn't the problem; it's the government programs that cause the deficit. These programs would still be wrong even if Bill Gates wrote a cheque to cover them each month. They corrode the citizen's sense of self-reliance to a potentially fatal degree. Big government is a national security threat: it increases your vulnerability to threats like Islamism, and makes it less likely you'll be able to summon the will to rebuff it. We should have learned that lesson on Sept. 11, 2001, when big government flopped big-time and the only good news of the day came from the ad hoc citizen militia of Flight 93.
There were two forces at play in the late 20th century: in the Eastern bloc, the collapse of Communism; in the West, the collapse of confidence. One of the most obvious refutations of Francis Fukuyama's famous thesis The End Of History -- written at the victory of liberal pluralist democracy over Soviet Communism -- is that the victors didn't see it as such. Americans -- or at least non-Democrat-voting Americans -- may talk about "winning" the Cold War but the French and the Belgians and Germans and Canadians don't. Very few British do. These are all formal NATO allies -- they were, technically, on the winning side against a horrible tyranny few would wish to live under themselves. In Europe, there was an initial moment of euphoria: it was hard not be moved by the crowds sweeping through the Berlin Wall, especially as so many of them were hot-looking Red babes eager to enjoy a Carlsberg or Stella Artois with even the nerdiest running dog of imperialism. But, when the moment faded, pace Fukuyama, there was no sense on the Continent that our Big Idea had beaten their Big Idea. With the best will in the world, it's hard to credit the citizens of France or Italy as having made any serious contribution to the defeat of Communism. Au contraire, millions of them voted for it, year in, year out. And, with the end of the Soviet existential threat, the enervation of the West only accelerated.
In Thomas P. M. Barnett's book Blueprint For Action, Robert D. Kaplan, a very shrewd observer of global affairs, is quoted referring to the lawless fringes of the map as "Indian territory." It's a droll joke but a misleading one. The difference between the old Indian territory and the new is this: no one had to worry about the Sioux riding down Fifth Avenue. Today, with a few hundred bucks on his ATM card, the fellow from the badlands can be in the heart of the metropolis within hours.
Here's another difference: in the old days, the white man settled the Indian territory. Now the followers of the badland's radical imams settle the metropolis.
And another difference: technology. In the old days, the Injuns had bows and arrows and the cavalry had rifles. In today's Indian territory, countries that can't feed their own people have nuclear weapons.
But beyond that the very phrase "Indian territory" presumes that inevitably these badlands will be brought within the bounds of the ordered world. In fact, a lot of today's "Indian territory" was relatively ordered a generation or two back -- West Africa, Pakistan, Bosnia. Though Eastern Europe and Latin America and parts of Asia are freer now than they were in the seventies, other swaths of the map have spiralled backwards. Which is more likely? That the parts of the world under pressure will turn into post-Communist Poland or post-Communist Yugoslavia? In Europe, the demographic pressures favour the latter.
The enemies we face in the future will look a lot like al-Qaeda: transnational, globalized, locally franchised, extensively outsourced -- but tied together through a powerful identity that leaps frontiers and continents. They won't be nation-states and they'll have no interest in becoming nation-states, though they might use the husks thereof, as they did in Afghanistan and then Somalia. The jihad may be the first, but other transnational deformities will embrace similar techniques. Sept. 10 institutions like the UN and the EU will be unlikely to provide effective responses.
We can argue about what consequences these demographic trends will have, but to say blithely they have none is ridiculous. The basic demography explains, for example, the critical difference between the "war on terror" for Americans and Europeans: in the U.S., the war is something to be fought in the treacherous sands of the Sunni Triangle and the caves of the Hindu Kush; you go to faraway places and kill foreigners. But, in Europe, it's a civil war. Neville Chamberlain dismissed Czechoslovakia as "a faraway country of which we know little." This time round, for much of western Europe it turned out the faraway country of which they knew little was their own.
Four years into the "war on terror," the Bush administration began promoting a new formulation: "the long war." Not a good sign. In a short war, put your money on tanks and bombs. In a long war, the better bet is will and manpower. The longer the long war gets, the harder it will be, because it's a race against time, against lengthening demographic, economic and geopolitical odds. By "demographic," I mean the Muslim world's high birth rate, which by mid-century will give tiny Yemen a higher population than vast empty Russia. By "economic," I mean the perfect storm the Europeans will face within this decade, because their lavish welfare states are unsustainable on their post-Christian birth rates. By "geopolitical," I mean that, if you think the United Nations and other international organizations are antipathetic to America now, wait a few years and see what kind of support you get from a semi-Islamified Europe.
Almost every geopolitical challenge in the years ahead has its roots in demography, but not every demographic crisis will play out the same way. That's what makes doing anything about it even more problematic -- because different countries' reactions to their own particular domestic circumstances are likely to play out in destabilizing ways on the international scene. In Japan, the demographic crisis exists virtually in laboratory conditions -- no complicating factors; in Russia, it will be determined by the country's relationship with a cramped neighbour -- China; and in Europe, the new owners are already in place -- like a tenant with a right-to-buy agreement.
-
Let's start in the most geriatric jurisdiction on the planet. In Japan, the rising sun has already passed into the next phase of its long sunset: net population loss. 2005 was the first year since records began in which the country had more deaths than births. Japan offers the chance to observe the demographic death spiral in its purest form. It's a country with no immigration, no significant minorities and no desire for any: just the Japanese, aging and dwindling.
At first it doesn't sound too bad: compared with the United States, most advanced societies are very crowded. If you're in a cramped apartment in a noisy congested city, losing a couple hundred thousand seems a fine trade-off. The difficulty, in a modern social democratic state, is managing which people to lose: already, according to the Japan Times, depopulation is "presenting the government with pressing challenges on the social and economic front, including ensuring provision of social security services and securing the labour force." For one thing, the shortage of children has led to a shortage of obstetricians. Why would any talented ambitious med school student want to go into a field in such precipitous decline? As a result, if you live in certain parts of Japan, childbirth is all in the timing. On Oki Island, try to time the contractions for Monday morning. That's when the maternity ward is open -- first day of the week, 10 a.m., when an obstetrician flies in to attend to any pregnant mothers who happen to be around. And at 5.30 p.m. she flies out. So, if you've been careless enough to time your childbirth for Tuesday through Sunday, you'll have to climb into a helicopter and zip off to give birth alone in a strange hospital unsurrounded by tiresome loved ones. Do Lamaze classes on Oki now teach you to time your breathing to the whirring of the chopper blades?
The last local obstetrician left the island in 2006 and the health service isn't expecting any more. Doubtless most of us can recall reading similar stories over the years from remote rural districts in America, Canada, Australia. After all, why would a village of a few hundred people have a great medical system? But Oki has a population of 17,000, and there are still no obstetricians: birthing is a dying business.
So what will happen? There are a couple of scenarios: whatever Japanese feelings on immigration, a country with great infrastructure won't empty out for long, any more than a state-of-the-art factory that goes belly up stays empty for long. At some point, someone else will move in to Japan's plant.
And the alternative? In The Children Of Men, P. D. James' dystopian fantasy about a barren world, there are special dolls for women whose maternal instinct has gone unfulfilled: pretend mothers take their artificial children for walks on the street or to the swings in the park. In Japan, that's no longer the stuff of dystopian fantasy. At the beginning of the century, the country's toy makers noticed they had a problem: toys are for children and Japan doesn't have many. What to do? In 2005, Tomy began marketing a new doll called Yumel -- a baby boy with a range of 1,200 phrases designed to serve as companions for the elderly. He says not just the usual things -- "I wuv you" -- but also asks the questions your grandchildren would ask if you had any: "Why do elephants have long noses?" Yumel joins his friend, the Snuggling Ifbot, a toy designed to have the conversation of a five-year old child which its makers, with the usual Japanese efficiency, have determined is just enough chit-chat to prevent the old folks going senile. It seems an appropriate final comment on the social democratic state: in a childish infantilized self-absorbed society where adults have been stripped of all responsibility, you need never stop playing with toys. We are the children we never had.
And why leave it at that? Is it likely an ever smaller number of young people will want to spend their active years looking after an ever greater number of old people? Or will it be simpler to put all that cutting-edge Japanese technology to good use and take a flier on Mister Roboto and the post-human future? After all, what's easier for the governing class? Weaning a pampered population off the good life and re-teaching them the lost biological impulse or giving the Sony Corporation a licence to become the Cloney Corporation? If you need to justify it to yourself, you'd grab the graphs and say, well, demographic decline is universal. It's like industrialization a couple of centuries back; everyone will get to it eventually, but the first to do so will have huge advantages: the relevant comparison is not with England's early 19th century population surge but with England's Industrial Revolution. In the industrial age, manpower was critical. In the new technological age, manpower will be optional -- and indeed, if most of the available manpower's Muslim, it's actually a disadvantage. As the most advanced society with the most advanced demographic crisis, Japan seems likely to be the first jurisdiction to embrace robots and cloning and embark on the slippery slope to transhumanism.
Demographic origin need not be the final word. In 1775, Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter to Joseph Priestly suggesting a mutual English friend might like to apply his mind to the conundrum the Crown faced:
Britain, at the expense of three millions, has killed 150 Yankees this campaign, which is ?20000 a head... During the same time, 60000 children have been born in America. From these data his mathematical head will easily calculate the time and the expense necessary to kill us all.
Obviously, Franklin was oversimplifying. Not every American colonist identified himself as a rebel. After the revolution, there were massive population displacements: as United Empire Loyalists well know, large numbers of New Yorkers left the colony to resettle in what's now Ontario. Some American Negroes were so anxious to remain subjects of King George III they resettled as far as Sierra Leone. For these people, their primary identity was not as American colonists but as British subjects. For others, their new identity as Americans had supplanted their formal allegiance to the Crown. The question for today's Europe is whether the primary identity of their fastest-growing demographic is Muslim or Belgian, Muslim or Dutch, Muslim or French.
That's where civilizational confidence comes in: if "Dutchness" or "Frenchness" seems a weak attenuated thing, then the stronger identity will prevail. One notes other similarities between revolutionary America and contemporary Europe: the United Empire Loyalists were older and wealthier; the rebels were younger and poorer. In the end, the former simply lacked the latter's strength of will.
Europe, like Japan, has catastrophic birth rates and a swollen pampered elderly class determined to live in defiance of economic reality. But the difference is that on the Continent the successor population is already in place and the only question is how bloody the transfer of real estate will be.
If America's "allies" failed to grasp the significance of 9/11, it's because Europe's home-grown terrorism problems had all taken place among notably static populations, such as Ulster and the Basque country. One could make generally safe extrapolations about the likelihood of holding Northern Ireland to what cynical strategists in Her Majesty's Government used to call an "acceptable level of violence." But in the same three decades as Ulster's "Troubles," the hitherto moderate Muslim populations of south Asia were radicalized by a politicized form of Islam; previously formally un-Islamic societies such as Nigeria became semi-Islamist; and large Muslim populations settled in parts of Europe that had little or no experience of mass immigration.
On the Continent and elsewhere in the West, native populations are aging and fading and being supplanted remorselessly by a young Muslim demographic. Time for the obligatory "of courses": of course, not all Muslims are terrorists -- though enough are hot for jihad to provide an impressive support network of mosques from Vienna to Stockholm to Toronto to Seattle. Of course, not all Muslims support terrorists -- though enough of them share their basic objectives (the wish to live under Islamic law in Europe and North America) to function wittingly or otherwise as the "good cop" end of an Islamic good cop/bad cop routine. But, at the very minimum, this fast-moving demographic transformation provides a huge comfort zone for the jihad to move around in. And in a more profound way it rationalizes what would otherwise be the nuttiness of the terrorists' demands. An IRA man blows up a pub in defiance of democratic reality -- because he knows that at the ballot box the Ulster Loyalists win the elections and the Irish Republicans lose. When a European jihadist blows something up, that's not in defiance of democratic reality but merely a portent of democratic reality to come. He's jumping the gun, but in every respect things are moving his way.
You may vaguely remember seeing some flaming cars on the evening news toward the end of 2005. Something going on in France, apparently. Something to do with -- what's the word? -- "youths." When I pointed out the media's strange reluctance to use the M-word vis-?-vis the rioting "youths," I received a ton of emails arguing there's no Islamist component, they're not the madrasa crowd, they may be Muslim but they're secular and Westernized and into drugs and rap and meaningless sex with no emotional commitment, and rioting and looting and torching and trashing, just like any normal healthy Western teenagers. These guys have economic concerns, it's the lack of jobs, it's conditions peculiar to France, etc. As one correspondent wrote, "You right-wing shit-for-brains think everything's about jihad."
Actually, I don't think everything's about jihad. But I do think, as I said, that a good 90 per cent of everything's about demography. Take that media characterization of those French rioters: "youths." What's the salient point about youths? They're youthful. Very few octogenarians want to go torching Renaults every night. It's not easy lobbing a Molotov cocktail into a police station and then hobbling back with your walker across the street before the searing heat of the explosion melts your hip replacement. Civil disobedience is a young man's game.
In June 2006, a 54-year-old Flemish train conductor called Guido Demoor got on the Number 23 bus in Antwerp to go to work. Six -- what's that word again? -- "youths" boarded the bus and commenced intimidating the other riders. There were some 40 passengers aboard. But the "youths" were youthful and the other passengers less so. Nonetheless, Mr. Demoor asked the lads to cut it out and so they turned on him, thumping and kicking him. Of those 40 other passengers, none intervened to help the man under attack. Instead, at the next stop, 30 of the 40 scrammed, leaving Mr. Demoor to be beaten to death. Three "youths" were arrested, and proved to be -- quelle surprise! -- of Moroccan origin. The ringleader escaped and, despite police assurances of complete confidentiality, of those 40 passengers only four came forward to speak to investigators. "You see what happens if you intervene," a fellow rail worker told the Belgian newspaper De Morgen. "If Guido had not opened his mouth he would still be alive."
No, he wouldn't. He would be as dead as those 40 passengers are, as the Belgian state is, keeping his head down, trying not to make eye contact, cowering behind his newspaper in the corner seat and hoping just to be left alone. What future in "their" country do Mr. Demoor's two children have? My mother and grandparents came from Sint-Niklaas, a town I remember well from many childhood visits. When we stayed with great-aunts and other relatives, the upstairs floors of the row houses had no bathrooms, just chamber pots. My sister and I were left to mooch around cobbled streets with our little cousin for hours on end, wandering aimlessly past smoke-wreathed bars and cafes, occasionally buying frites with mayonnaise. With hindsight it seemed as parochially Flemish as could be imagined. Not anymore. The week before Mr. Demoor was murdered in plain sight, bus drivers in Sint-Niklaas walked off the job to protest the thuggery of the -- here it comes again -- "youths." In little more than a generation, a town has been transformed.
Of the ethnic Belgian population, some 17 per cent are under 18 years old. Of the country's Turkish and Moroccan population, 35 per cent are under 18 years old. The "youths" get ever more numerous, the non-youths get older. To avoid the ruthless arithmetic posited by Benjamin Franklin, it is necessary for those "youths" to feel more Belgian. Is that likely? Colonel Gadhafi doesn't think so:
There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe -- without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.
On Sept. 11, 2001, the American mainland was attacked for the first time since the War of 1812. The perpetrators were foreign -- Saudis and Egyptians. Since 9/11, Europe has seen the London Tube bombings, the French riots, Dutch murders of nationalist politicians. The perpetrators are their own citizens -- British subjects, citoyens de la R?publique fran?aise. In Linz, Austria, Muslims are demanding that all female teachers, believers or infidels, wear head scarves in class. The Muslim Council of Britain wants Holocaust Day abolished because it focuses "only" on the Nazis' (alleged) Holocaust of the Jews and not the Israelis' ongoing Holocaust of the Palestinians.
How does the state react? In Seville, King Ferdinand III is no longer patron saint of the annual fiesta because his splendid record in fighting for Spanish independence from the Moors was felt to be insensitive to Muslims. In London, a judge agreed to the removal of Jews and Hindus from a trial jury because the Muslim defendant's counsel argued he couldn't get a fair verdict from them. The Church of England is considering removing St. George as the country's patron saint on the grounds that, according to various Anglican clergy, he's too "militaristic" and "offensive to Muslims." They wish to replace him with St. Alban, and replace St. George's cross on the revamped Union Flag, which would instead show St. Alban's cross as a thin yellow streak.
In a few years, as millions of Muslim teenagers are entering their voting booths, some European countries will not be living formally under sharia, but -- as much as parts of Nigeria, they will have reached an accommodation with their radicalized Islamic compatriots, who like many intolerant types are expert at exploiting the "tolerance" of pluralist societies. In other Continental countries, things are likely to play out in more traditional fashion, though without a significantly different ending. Wherever one's sympathies lie on Islam's multiple battle fronts the fact is the jihad has held out a long time against very tough enemies. If you're not shy about taking on the Israelis and Russians, why wouldn't you fancy your chances against the Belgians and Spaniards?
"We're the ones who will change you," the Norwegian imam Mullah Krekar told the Oslo newspaper Dagbladet in 2006. "Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children." As he summed it up: "Our way of thinking will prove more powerful than yours."
Reprinted by permission of Regnery Publishing from America Alone ? 2006 by Mark Steyn
To comment, email letters@macleans.ca
-
I have bought and read Steyn's book. IMHO this is a very important book that everyone should read.
-
November 02, 2006
Anybody out there seen my book?
You won't sell my book in Canada? Why, I'm flattered
MARK STEYN
Some years ago, back when this here Internet thing that the kids are crazy over was brand new, I remember reading a piece about Amazon.com. And some fellow was wondering whether he should invest in Amazon.com. "No," said the big financial journalist, "you should be amazon.com."
From the murky slough of my memory, this thought swam up to the surface for the first time in years. The other day my new book was published -- as you may recall, if only because it was the cover story in Maclean's a couple of weeks back. Don't worry; lest you think this is a book plug, I don't think it's possible to plug a book that at the time of writing is unavailable in any Canadian bookstore coast to coast, from Gander to Victoria. Authors have always been interested in inventory, of course. I don't know whether he still does it, but for many years the "novelist" Jeffrey Archer had a habit of wandering into shops and surreptitiously autographing all copies of his books, thus rendering them unreturnable. Less motivated chaps, on discovering the local emporium has not a single copy of the magnum opus, tend just to shrug and move on to writing our next unwanted book.
Which is pretty much what I did when kind readers -- well, technically, non-readers -- wrote after the Maclean's cover story to point out that Chapters-Indigo-Coles-Smithbooks and all the many aliases of Canada's multi-appellated monopoly bookstore chain had no copies of my new book, whose title escapes me, as evidently it did Heather Reisman. Ms. Reisman, if that is indeed her name, is the proprietress of Chapters-Indigo-Aliases R Us, and is famous for ostentatiously announcing the simultaneous banning from all her chains of Mein Kampf, which is tough on visitors from the Middle East, where the new Arabic edition is a bestseller. ("Kampf" is translated as "jihad." Really.)
I can't speak for Herr Hitler and his Arabic translator, but I took a relaxed view of being excluded from the diverse Dominion. I was a walking Red Rose tea commercial: "Everywhere except Canada? Pity." I felt oddly liberated at having been deemed of no interest to Ms. Reisman's many chains: "Take these chains from my heart and set me free!" as Ray Charles observed in another context. But this is the Internet age, and so within 72 hours I'd had hundreds of emails from my compatriots demanding to know why I'd made the mistake of shipping tons of copies of the book to Des Moines and Buffalo but none to Toronto or Vancouver. And for the first few dozen, I wrote back explaining that it's certainly not that we failed to deliver to Ms. Reisman, and thus her "World's Biggest Bookstore" was reduced to filling the front tables with a groaning cornucopia of thousands of copies of unreadable anti-Bush tracts (Dumbass) faute de mieux: Chapters chose to order that stuff.
But then, what with U.S. book signings cutting into my time, my assistant started sending out form responses: "Dear Sir or Madam, Thank you for your letter complaining about being unable to find Mark's book in (delete as applicable) (a) Chapters; (b) Indigo; (c) Coles; (d-y) other wholly independent operating units of Chapters or Indigo, as the case may be; or (z) Mom 'n' Pop's Home-Style Village Bookstore."
At that point, a helpful reader at my website pointed out that Chapters' site had a convenient feature enabling one to search the inventory to find the nearest store with a copy in stock. A reader in Halifax then wrote back to say that she'd looked and there were no copies anywhere in Atlantic Canada, and after that she'd given up. Another helpful reader pointed out that there was a copy at the Chapters branch on Robson Street in Vancouver, which we passed on to the Halifax gal, as Robson Street is a convenient and easy drive from Nova Scotia. Mr. P. Mennel from Vancouver then wrote to say he'd been to the Robson Street branch and, although the computer did indeed show my book as being in the store, the clerk had been unable to find it. We posted this on my website in hopes we could catch the Halifax lady before she reached Saskatchewan.
By this stage, I was beginning to get a lot of mail along the lines of: "Ha! So Heather Reisman assured us that banning Mein Kampf was strictly a one-time deal. It seems her list has gotten a little longer . . ." Etc. I was reluctant to impute such motives to Chapters, but I did find myself recalling something Don Black, the lyricist of Born Free and To Sir With Love and Diamonds Are Forever, said to me years ago. He remarked how he always feels like a schmuck going into a Virgin Megastore or HMV and asking the extravagantly pierced young thing behind the desk for a Rosemary Clooney album. To be honest, I've always felt a bit like that in a Canadian bookstore. If they had, say, David Frum's latest on the shelf, you could at least slip it in between the Pierre Berton and the Yann Martel and hope the guy in line behind you doesn't spot it. But if it's not on the shelf and you have to ask for it . . . A gentleman in Calgary inquired about my book and was told there was no demand for it. During this exchange, two other people asked the same question of a neighbouring clerk and got the same response. There's no demand for the book, just a huge demand for the explanation that no one's demanding it.
A frustrated Mr. Robert Werner received the following written reply from Laura Blight, Indigo's "Coordinator, Selling Services & Solutions, Store Performance Department": "Wow, this title is certainly generating interest!" In everyone except Ms. Blight and her colleagues, it seems. The book was at No. 6 at Amazon.com; it was in its fourth printing in the U.S. on the day it was officially released; even at Chapters' own website, at the time of writing 83 patrons have given it an "average customer rating" of five stars (or maple leafs, inevitably), and yet Ms. Reisman lists it as "not yet available."
So in the end, we directed readers to Amazon.ca, which Chapters, you'll recall, wanted banned from the Canadian market. At Amazon.ca, the book made the week's Top 10 bestsellers on its first day and rose to No. 2, before selling out. At which point, Canadians had to go to Amazon.com and order from down south. And, if you do that, something called "the Canadian Border Services Agency" charges you a couple of bucks for GST along with a five-dollar "service fee." It seems a little odd for a service agency to sting you with a service fee for the service they're meant to provide. Rather as if Maclean's charged you the cover price and then tossed in a five-dollar "service fee" for writing and editing. But I guess calling it a "service fee" is a way to disguise what it really is: a protectionist tariff that's in breach of the NAFTA treaty. That's if they let it through. A day or two before the cover story in Maclean's was due to go to bed, I received an urgent email from the editor saying their copy had been "held at the border." Hmm.
As a Canadian, I've found it an interesting experience to be on the receiving end of the decayed Dominion's narrow definition of "cultural diversity," and the peculiarly restrictive combination of government regulation in aid of corporate monopoly, in which Ms. Reisman decides what books she's prepared to stock and the Canada Border Services Agency then imposes a shakedown fee on those that don't meet her criteria. There's nothing more damaging for a book than to get cover stories and interviews and whatnot, but for it to be unavailable in any store. And no doubt Chapters-Indigo's decision to order three copies and use them to prop up the wonky rear right-hand leg of the Dumbass display means fewer Canadians who don't already know about it will ever see my book, which is kinda sad, but weirdly lucrative. According to the CBC, in Canada a "bestseller" sells 5,000 copies. I was amazed to discover that we've already sold that many just on my little website. And a huge number of that 5,000 were shipped out to readers across Canada who'd tried and failed to buy it at Chapters-Indigo and, like Shelley Ide of Port Moody, B.C., wrote to say that "I will never set foot in a Chapters again." If Heather Reisman carries on boycotting me, I should be able to retire to Tahiti within the year.
In a way, it's very exciting. I could be the first Canadian author to win the Governor General's Award without ever selling a copy in a Canadian bookstore.
But I expect they've got rules about that, too.
-
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http:...nists_mark_steyn.htm
A DARK GLOBALISM
By MARK STEYN
October 17, 2006 -- New Hampshire-based columnist Mark Steyn is one of the most trenchant writers in the English-speaking world today. Hitting stores this week is his new book, "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It" - a grim look at the West's fecklessness in the face of the threat from radical Islam. The Post is happy to give its readers a taste with this excerpt.
- THE EDITORS
THE dragons are no longer on the edge of the map: That's the lesson of 9/11.
When you look at it that way, the biggest globali zation success story of recent years is not McDonald's or Microsoft but Islamism. The Saudis took what was not so long ago a severe but peripheral strain of Islam - practiced by Bedouins in the middle of a desert miles from anywhere - and successfully exported it to Jakarta and Singapore and Alma-Ata and Grozny and Sarajevo and Lyons and Bergen and Manchester and Ottawa and Dearborn and Falls Church. It was a strictly local virus, but the bird flew the coop.
And now, instead of the quaintly parochial terrorist movements of yore, we have the first globalized insurgency.
As a bleary Dean Martin liked to say, in mock bewilderment, at the start of his stage act: "How did all these people get in my room?" How did all these jihadists get rooms in Miami and Portland and Montreal? How did we come to breed suicide bombers not just in Gaza but in Yorkshire?
IN the globalized pre-9/11 world, we in the West thought in terms of nations - the Americans, the French, the Chinese - and, insofar as we considered transnational groups, were obsessed mostly with race. Religion wasn't really on the radar.
So an insurgency that lurks within a religion automatically has a global network. And you don't need "deep cover": You can hang your shingle on Main Street and we won't even notice it. And when we do - as we did on 9/11 - we still won't do anything about it, because, well, it's a religion, and modern man is disinclined to go after any faith except perhaps his own.
But Islam is not just a religion. Those lefties who bemoan what America is doing to provoke "the Muslim world" would go bananas if any Western politician started referring to "the Christian world." When such sensitive guardians of the separation of church and state endorse the first formulation but not the second, they implicitly accept that Islam has a political sovereignty too. Thus, it's not merely that there's a global jihad lurking within this religion, but that the religion itself is a political project - and, in fact, an imperial project - in a way that modern Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are not.
Furthermore, this particular religion is historically a somewhat bloodthirsty faith, in which whatever's your bag violence-wise can almost certainly be justified. (Yes, Christianity has had its blood drenched moments, but the Spanish Inquisition, still a byword for theocratic violence, killed fewer people in a century and a half than the jihad does in a typical year.)
So we have a global terrorist movement, insulated within a global political project, insulated within a severely self-segregating religion whose adherents are the fastest-growing demographic in the developed world. The jihad thus has a very potent brand inside a highly dispersed and very decentralized network much more efficient than anything the CIA can muster. And these fellows can hide in plain sight.
NOT long after 9/11, I said, just as an aside, that these days whenever something goofy turns up on the news chances are it involves some fellow called Mohammad.
A plane flies into the World Trade Center? Mohammad Atta.
A sniper starts killing gas station customers around Washington, D.C.? John Allen Muhammad.
A guy fatally stabs a Dutch movie director? Mohammed Bouyeri.
A gunman shoots up the El Al counter at Los Angeles airport? Hesham Mohamed Hedayet.
A terrorist slaughters dozens in Bali? Noordin Mohamed.
A British subject self-detonates in a Tel Aviv bar? Asif Mohammad Hanif.
A terrorist cell bombs the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Ali Mohamed.
A gang rapist preys on the women of Sydney, Australia? Mohammad Skaf.
A group of Dearborn, Mich., men charged with cigarette racketeering in order to fund Hezbollah? Fadi Mohamad-Musbah Hammoud, Mohammad Fawzi Zeidan and Imad Mohamad-Musbah Hammoud.
A Canadian terror cell is arrested for plotting to bomb Ottawa and behead the prime minister? Mohammad Dirie, Amin Mohamed Durrani and Yasim Abdi Mohamed.
Sophisticates object that very few of the Mohammads on the list above are formal agents of al Qaeda. But so what? There are no "card-carrying members" of this enemy: That's what makes them an ever-bigger threat: You don't need to plant sleepers. If you've got a big pool of manpower and a big idea that's just out there all the time - 24/7, flickering away invitingly like a neon sign in the Western darkness - that's enough to cause a big heap of trouble.
AND there are minimal degrees of separation between all these Mohammads and the most eminent figures in the Muslim world and the critical institutions at the heart of the West. For example, in 2003, Abdurahman Alamoudi was jailed for attempting to launder money from a Libyan terror-front "charity" into Syria via London.
Who's Abdurahman Alamoudi? He's the guy who until 1998 certified Muslim chaplains for the United States military, under the aegis of his Saudi-funded American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council. In 1993, at an American military base, at a ceremony to install the first imam in the nation's armed forces, it was Mr. Alamoudi who presented him with his new insignia of a silver crescent star.
He's also the fellow who helped devise the three-week Islamic awareness course in California public schools, in the course of which students adopt Muslim names, wear Islamic garb, give up candy and TV for Ramadan, memorize suras from the Koran, learn that "jihad" means "internal personal struggle," profess the Muslim faith, and recite prayers that begin "In the name of Allah," etc.
OH, and, aside from his ster ling efforts on behalf of multicultural education, Alamoudi was also an adviser on Islamic matters to Hillary Clinton.
And it turns out he's a bagman for terrorists.
Infiltration-wise, I would say that's pretty good. The desk jockeys at the CIA insist, oh no, it would be impossible for them to get any of their boys inside al Qaeda. But the other side has no difficulty setting their chaps up in the heart of the U.S. military, and the U.S. education system, and the U.S. political establishment, and the offices of U.S. senators and former First Ladies.
Mark Steyn was a winner of the 2006 Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Opinion Journalism. Excerpted with permission from "America Alone: The End of the World as We KnowIt" (Regnery).
-
Vive La Caliphate
By Jeremy Rabkin
The Weekly Standard | November 16, 2006
America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It
By Mark Steyn
Regnery, 256 pp., $27.95
It's human nature to recoil from the saddest or most distressing sights. If there's another side of us that is fascinated by disaster, there are lots of disaster stories competing for attention. Cable news and the Internet make it all too easy to switch over or click on to the latest breaking tale of woe. To keep us focused on the most alarming underlying trends, we need a really entertaining writer.
So here's Mark Steyn, with all his trademarked verbal slapstick and clowning. And his new book is intensely sobering. Most of it has been said before--and by no one more insistently than Steyn himself in his regular columns in America, Canada, and Britain. But with the space now to keep spinning out the implications, Steyn offers a warning that is riveting.
The challenge starts with demographic trends. European birthrates have fallen way below replacement levels. In today's Italy, for example, there are barely half as many children under the age of five as there were in 1970. As the proportion of old people increases and the proportion of young workers declines, European welfare states face financial strains that make our own problems with Social Security look mild and manageable.
Immigration, once seen as an answer to this problem, now poses an even more intense challenge in much of Europe. Immigrants from Muslim countries have maintained high birthrates and concentrated in major cities, so large parts of major cities are now preserves of immigrant cultures. Complacent talk of multiculturalism has allowed European governments to ignore the challenge of winning the loyalties and attachments of immigrants. For children of immigrants, who have no strong attachments either to their old or new countries, extremist ideology often fills the void.
In practice, Steyn warns, Europe is trending toward societies that are not so much multicultural as bicultural--split between a growing minority that embraces Muslim discipline and identity, and a bewildered, anxious, aging population that does not. Bicultural societies are rarely stable.
Europeans scoff at the idea that Iraq could become a pluralist democracy, but then imagine that European social democracy can ensure happy harmony with people fired by some of the same zeal as Iraqi "insurgents."
You think Kurds and Arabs, Sunni and Shia are incompatible? What do you call a jurisdiction split between post-Christian secular gay potheads and anti-whoring anti-sodomite anti-everything-you-dig Islamists? If Kurdistan's an awkward fit in Iraq, how well does Pornostan fit in the Islamic Republic of Holland?
Sure, Western decadence has an appeal, even for children of Algerian immigrants in the banlieux of Paris. But restless young people may well combine the worst aspects of Western decadence with the worst impulses of Islamist extremism: "Whether in turbans or gangsta threads, just as Communism was in its day, so Islam is today's identity of choice for the world's disaffected."
A reform of Islam? "What if the reform has already taken place and jihadism is it?" Steyn puts the challenge very sharply: "Those who call for a Muslim reformation in the spirit of the Christian Reformation ignore the obvious flaw in the analogy--that Muslims have the advantage of knowing (unlike Luther and Calvin) where reform in Europe ultimately led: the banishment of God to the margins of society."
In some places, gradual but relentless accommodation to the new culture will steer societies along a path where "there's very little difference between living under Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and sharia." Elsewhere, there may be resistance, triggering street violence or political upheaval. Amidst worsening economic trends and increasing instability, more and more educated young people will seek their futures in more promising countries--hastening the dissolution of the old society. So Steyn foresees "societal collapse, fascist revivalism, and then the long Eurabian night, not over the entire Continent but over significant parts of it. And those countries that manage to escape the darkness will do so only after violent convulsions of their own."
Even if that nightmarish vision is too extreme, the strategic point remains: No matter what rhetoric our State Department adopts, European nations are not going to be confident, capable partners for American international aims. Would France help us thwart the nuclear plans of the mullahs in Tehran? The "quai d'Orsay can live with Iran becoming the second Muslim nuclear power. As things stand, France is on course to be the third."
Steyn still expresses hope for the effort in Iraq, and not just as a way of emphasizing the hopelessness of coming conflicts in Europe. In many Muslim countries, people may think about their own future more soberly or reasonably, because they're not viewing things through the perspective of mounting conflict with hedonists across town. Meanwhile, Russia, China, and Japan face their own demographic crises. The utter incapacity of international institutions will discourage smaller countries from thinking about anything more than their own immediate interests. So on Steyn's telling, we are heading to an era of ongoing crisis, an era when the world cannot bring itself even to constrain the spread of weapons of mass destruction, much less focus concentrated condemnation on such "depravities" as suicide bombing.
The United States really will be "alone" in fundamental ways. It is the one nation in the developed world that is not facing demographic decline, the one nation for which the challenge of Islamist extremism remains largely external. What is out there, of course, can come crashing into the heart of American cities as it did on 9/11. And meanwhile, we continue pouring billions of petrodollars into the coffers of Middle Eastern regimes that still seem content to recycle that immense stream of wealth into extremist religion in Europe and around the world.
Steyn offers little in the way of policy prescriptions. He argues that American self-confidence owes much to our tradition of keeping government in bounds and encouraging the self-reliance of individuals. So he ends up warning that proposals for emulating European welfare states--as in extending government guarantees for health care--will have momentous strategic consequences. Maybe. But I'm not sure invoking the imperatives of national defense in every debate about domestic spending or regulation is really a good way to get people to take defense concerns more seriously.
Steyn's main point remains. The collapse of existing political structures in Europe will require not just a reassessment of strategic calculations--NATO and all that. It will require a very considerable psychological adjustment. A calm and reasonable future is not, after all, guaranteed by the advance of technology, by the expansion of trade, or by the softening of old ideologies in the advanced countries.
The threat is not that a new caliphate will rule the world, but that the world will revert to medieval chaos and wretchedness. The United States certainly can't expect to restore the world as it was in the 1990s, but it also can't pretend that everything will be fine if we let history take its own path. We may find unexpected allies, including some in those Muslim countries that don't want to be dominated by jihadist visions. But whatever we do, we can't assume that old allies in Europe will be there for us.
Steyn's conclusion is not a joke: "To see off the new Dark Ages will be tough and demanding. The alternative will be worse."
-
A German friend with good feeling about the US with whom I shared the Steyn piece had this to say:
============
Ever since I have been introduced by you to the idea that Europe may become part muslim I have been discussing this topic with people around me I know. We all consider this a very absurd prediction.
1.) Yes, there will be a gap in the social welfare. After all, the birthrate prediction is a statistic and may not represent the actual situation but can only show trends. One trend is that people get children at a later age than our parents. The average family now has two children at the age of 31, before it has been at the age of 21. There are a lot of young couples around me that have children now. Europeans will not die out.
2.) Yes, most countries in Europe have problems with their immigrants. France and England are an exception due to their colonialist past. They will face massive problems in the future. However not all of these immigrants are Muslims. There are a lot of people from former Yugoslavia and Africa. A lot of immigrants from Arabian countries however are Christians. Due to the conflicts in those countries, it has become harder for them to live there. A lot of refugees from Iraq for example are secular Christians.
3.) Yes, fundamental islam has become a haven for lost souls. Indeed, to a lot of young kids of former immigrants Islam gives a home. BUT, Islam does not equate terrorism, as being christian does not include being a mormon. There is fundamental islamism in Europe, as there is a by far greater number of hardworking, honest and reasonable muslims, no better or worse than a jew or christian.
4.) Europe will NOT become semi-muslim - this is wishful thinking. There're facts you can build such a theory on. Europe rather will see another wave of Nationalism.
5.) Europe has a different mechanism of integration. While in the US an immigrant is assimiliated within one generation, in Europe it takes about 3 - 4 generations. Immigrants then also aren't assimiliated, but in a profound process the origin culture is being put under a test by European values. That brings forth a lot more conflict and takes longer.
6.) Yes, Europe has an identity crisis. The changes of the 1990s were over here , not in the US. 20 years ago the new members of the EU have been our enemies. 20 years ago we learned to shoot russians in the military, now they're our ally. The US will have to show a bit more sensitivity to the changes we haven't yet been able to acclimate to anyhow. If you want Europe as a new enemy, I guess scribes like Hanson, Peters or Steyn will be very quick to give reasons for that.
-
Ever since I have been introduced by you to the idea that Europe may become part muslim I have been discussing this topic with people around me I know. We all consider this a very absurd prediction.
**I think in general, europe is very much in denial, from the top down as to the changes taking place around them. A unwillingness to examine the crisis coupled with deeply ingrained "political correctness" prevents a basic discussion of the problem. The fact that this German needed to hear about this subject from an American demonstrates the core disconnect.**
1.) Yes, there will be a gap in the social welfare. After all, the birthrate prediction is a statistic and may not represent the actual situation but can only show trends. One trend is that people get children at a later age than our parents. The average family now has two children at the age of 31, before it has been at the age of 21. There are a lot of young couples around me that have children now. Europeans will not die out.
**Statistics are empirical evidence. This writer is citing anecdotal oberservations that young couples around him (I'm assuming it's him, not her) are having children. The issue isn't that europeans aren't reproducing, it's that they aren't reproducing at a sufficient rate to stabilize their population loss and the economic death spiral of socialism.**
2.) Yes, most countries in Europe have problems with their immigrants. France and England are an exception due to their colonialist past. They will face massive problems in the future. However not all of these immigrants are Muslims. There are a lot of people from former Yugoslavia and Africa. A lot of immigrants from Arabian countries however are Christians. Due to the conflicts in those countries, it has become harder for them to live there. A lot of refugees from Iraq for example are secular Christians.
**I'm not sure if the author intends to say that the UK and France have a better or worse problem with immigrants due to a colonial past. I'm assuming the author is aware of the ongoing problems with the growing French "Intifada" in the Parisian suburbs and the British lads who grew up speaking the Queen's english, cheering for Manchester United and eating fish and chips who none the less were ready to wear bomb vests and walk into the tube and become shaheeds in the midst of their fellow British subjects. They weren't poor, disenfranchised refugees living in squalid conditions. They were the products of "Cool Britiania" and the call of jihad which seems to greatly overwhelm any alligence to "Queen and Country". As far as christians fleeing the middle east, that's very true. In the US, the majority of arabs aren't muslims. The majority of muslims aren't arab. As the global jihad grows, the fate of non-muslims in muslim areas worsens and you'll see many more fleeing to non-muslim nations. For many, europe will provide only temporary shelter.**
3.) Yes, fundamental islam has become a haven for lost souls. Indeed, to a lot of young kids of former immigrants Islam gives a home. BUT, Islam does not equate terrorism, as being christian does not include being a mormon. There is fundamental islamism in Europe, as there is a by far greater number of hardworking, honest and reasonable muslims, no better or worse than a jew or christian.
**Islam doesn't always equate terrorism, but it's core theology does. It's long and bloody past and very bloody present demonstrate that islam across the globe very rarely peacefully coexists with other religions and cultures. A religion, which was founded by a genocidal rapist who funded the violent growth with attacks on caravans when his early attempts to spread his new religion by peaceful evangelization failed is a trap that which would-be reformers of islam haven't figured out a theologically viable way to escape. To create a version of islam that is willing to peacefully coexist with a secular society requires throwing out much of the koran and vast amounts of hadith and sira. It means that the core concept of islam as not only a religion, but a wholistic way of life that dictates not only personal conduct and a relationship with god, but law and government and a requirement for islam to be globally dominant must be shed. Those within the islamic world that attempt to do so in a public manner rarely die of natural causes and the jihadis can support much, if not all of their actions by core aspects of islamic theology.**
4.) Europe will NOT become semi-muslim - this is wishful thinking. There're facts you can build such a theory on. Europe rather will see another wave of Nationalism.
**It's not my wish. I'd very much prefer not to see it happen. As far as nationalism, the most likely scenario is at a certain point those europeans who wish to fight to sustain themselves will turn to right wing fascist groups and fight a very ugly civil war. A much better approach would be a rational and moderate discussion and policy changes now, but as the topic is still very much unexamined by the majority of europeans precious time is being lost.**
5.) Europe has a different mechanism of integration. While in the US an immigrant is assimiliated within one generation, in Europe it takes about 3 - 4 generations. Immigrants then also aren't assimiliated, but in a profound process the origin culture is being put under a test by European values. That brings forth a lot more conflict and takes longer.
**I'm not sure what the writer means by this. The fact that the US has and is very successful in creating Americans from immigrants is our great strength. It's ironic that the parents of european suicide bombers were much more intigrated into their adopted countries than their culturally compitent, yet rejectionist children are. Exactly how many more generations are required before the new demands for sharia law are forgotten?**
6.) Yes, Europe has an identity crisis. The changes of the 1990s were over here , not in the US. 20 years ago the new members of the EU have been our enemies. 20 years ago we learned to shoot russians in the military, now they're our ally. The US will have to show a bit more sensitivity to the changes we haven't yet been able to acclimate to anyhow. If you want Europe as a new enemy, I guess scribes like Hanson, Peters or Steyn will be very quick to give reasons for that.
**The US made possible the changes in europe and continues to provide for europe's collective protection, despite the flagrant ingratitude that seems to have become a core element of european culture at this point. It hate to break it to the writer, but Russia, especially now isn't western europe's ally. Watch how Putin is manuvering to control europe's energy supply and tell me it's out of an ally's benevolent feelings. I don't fear europe as an enemy. I fear watching it's demise. I fear seeing ancient site and artifacts destroyed because they are seen as "haram". I fear that a future crisis with an nuclear armed "Francostan". It won't be Europeans, as we know them now that we'll be confronting.**
-
Hello everyone
Well, I'm this German friend. Let me give you a short introduction:
As I don't like everybody in this world to read about my political and social believes, I have decided to write in this Forum anonymously. You may know me from the members forum, Marc invited me to join the discussion over here. I ask you to excuse me not giving away my name. I have grown up in Germany and now live in another european country. I'm from a generation which has grown up amongst the children of the immigrants from Afghanistan, Turkey or Palastina (amongst other non-islamic countries as well) and know the problems of these youths from first hand expierence. That must be enough background information about me for now.
In your discussion of my points raised, you already make on predestination: That the takeover of muslims over Europe is scientifically proven process which evidently will take place. I don't think so.
I think in general, europe is very much in denial, from the top down as to the changes taking place around them.
That is not true. Some countries in Europe like France and England, due to their colonialist past, have always had to answer the question of how to integrate their former "subjects" into their motherland society. Scandinavian countries f.e. had to deal with this question at a much later point. The first to raise the prediction that Europe will become 'Eurabia' have been Americans. That is in itself a very radical view upon the processes which are right now taking place and IMO not reflecting reality appropriately.
A unwillingness to examine the crisis coupled with deeply ingrained "political correctness" prevents a basic discussion of the problem.
Not true. Political correctness is something that Americans have invented and certainly isn't deeply ingrained in Europe.
Statistics are empirical evidence.
They are empirical. But most somewhat reasonable statistician will tell you that there are exceptions to what statistics are capable of and what not. They first and foremost are not the 21st tarots cards to predict whats going to happen in the future - history has shown that most predictions drawn from statistics have not become true. Statistics do certainly reflect tendencies and thus are able to give a hint as how something will develop if it remains in the very same state at the point that statistic has been made. The larger the area and the more diversity of ways that data has been collected, the more inaccuraricies sneak into a statistic.
I guess we first of all have to agree that Europe is not a unified state like the USA. The EU and EFTA primarily are two economic structures. In the past years the EU has been joined by new countries which 15 years ago would have belong to enemy of the NATO. The new EU has a great diversity now, hard to make generalizations.
I'm not sure if the author intends to say that the UK and France have a better or worse problem with immigrants due to a colonial past. I'm assuming the author is aware of the ongoing problems ...
They are having a worse problem and yes, the author is aware of these problems. The french intifada you are talking about is first and foremost a social problem and no clash of cultures. These young people are all french - and most of them would like to be much more European than they're allowed to. France has done some grave errors with integration. Most probably not covered in American media are the attempts of the local muslim leaders to stop the violence.
I wil not further delve into your picture of Islam as being a religion of a "genocidal rapist". I will not take the standpoint to argument for Islam, but I would like to suggest that you dig a bit deeper into history. There have been a lot of muslim rulers which by have been much more civilzed than most christians ever were. Being an Atheist myself, I still have large respect for the follower of any religion, wether it be Jews, Christians and Muslims. There're aspects about being a muslim we in the west could only wish for that some of their followers live and express more vividly.
It won't be Europeans, as we know them now that we'll be confronting.
In my eyes this is a pretty paranoid view of the world. Do you know any Europeans in person?
Muslims are not one homogenic movement. The muslims in Europe are very different from each other, each having their own agendas. I certainly admit that Europe is having a problem with uneducated, poor and badly integrated children of foreigners. Most of these foreigners are coming from a war torn country or a very archaic society. Their children are the second generation here. Unfortunately those well educated and with more financial means, are much better integrated than those from the working poor.
There isn't the one muslim, as there isn't the one jew or the one christian. No devil with the turban swinging his sword, uniting secrectly to take over Europe. We have a very heterogenic mix of people. Some highly intelligent and some very desparate. But they're all together people like you and me.
BTW, awaiting Mark Steyn's book from the store..
-
In your discussion of my points raised, you already make on predestination: That the takeover of muslims over Europe is scientifically proven process which evidently will take place. I don't think so.
***I don't think it's a done deal, but the trends don't look good.**
Quote
I think in general, europe is very much in denial, from the top down as to the changes taking place around them.
That is not true. Some countries in Europe like France and England, due to their colonialist past, have always had to answer the question of how to integrate their former "subjects" into their motherland society. Scandinavian countries f.e. had to deal with this question at a much later point. The first to raise the prediction that Europe will become 'Eurabia' have been Americans. That is in itself a very radical view upon the processes which are right now taking place and IMO not reflecting reality appropriately.
***Actually, Bat Ye'or is credited with coining the term "Eurabia". I suggest you read some of her writing on the subject. She is a Egyptian born British citizen who lives in Switzerland.***
Quote
A unwillingness to examine the crisis coupled with deeply ingrained "political correctness" prevents a basic discussion of the problem.
Not true. Political correctness is something that Americans have invented and certainly isn't deeply ingrained in Europe.
***Actually the term originates within marxism, if I recall correctly and not within the US. I'll look around and see if I can find some good examples of what I would consider european "political correctness" to cite.***
Quote
Statistics are empirical evidence.
They are empirical. But most somewhat reasonable statistician will tell you that there are exceptions to what statistics are capable of and what not. They first and foremost are not the 21st tarots cards to predict whats going to happen in the future - history has shown that most predictions drawn from statistics have not become true. Statistics do certainly reflect tendencies and thus are able to give a hint as how something will develop if it remains in the very same state at the point that statistic has been made. The larger the area and the more diversity of ways that data has been collected, the more inaccuraricies sneak into a statistic.
***Agreed.***
I guess we first of all have to agree that Europe is not a unified state like the USA. The EU and EFTA primarily are two economic structures. In the past years the EU has been joined by new countries which 15 years ago would have belong to enemy of the NATO. The new EU has a great diversity now, hard to make generalizations.
***Yes, but the EU as a structure is working to dissolve the european nation-state in any meaningful way, successfully for the most part, with some good but to my mind more harm to induvidual freedom.***
Quote
I'm not sure if the author intends to say that the UK and France have a better or worse problem with immigrants due to a colonial past. I'm assuming the author is aware of the ongoing problems ...
They are having a worse problem and yes, the author is aware of these problems. The french intifada you are talking about is first and foremost a social problem and no clash of cultures. These young people are all french - and most of them would like to be much more European than they're allowed to. France has done some grave errors with integration. Most probably not covered in American media are the attempts of the local muslim leaders to stop the violence.
***So when the "Youths" light a car (or person) afire and yell "Allah Akbar!" I shouldn't assume there is a connection to islamic identity?***
I wil not further delve into your picture of Islam as being a religion of a "genocidal rapist". I will not take the standpoint to argument for Islam, but I would like to suggest that you dig a bit deeper into history. There have been a lot of muslim rulers which by have been much more civilzed than most christians ever were. Being an Atheist myself, I still have large respect for the follower of any religion, wether it be Jews, Christians and Muslims. There're aspects about being a muslim we in the west could only wish for that some of their followers live and express more vividly.
***I would argue that I know the history quite well and my statements are well based in historical fact. Muhammad was in his 50's when he married Aisha, his third wife. She was 6, though he is supposed (according to islamic theologians) not to have consummated the marriage until she was 9 years old. The direct affect of this is girls of the same age being married to adult men all over the muslim world. When an observant muslim asks himself "What would Muhammad do?" the answer is usually something very bloody, as that was his response throughout most of his life. I'll put this article in here, as I think it clearly explain the point i'm trying to make much better than I could.***
Khaybar, Khaybar
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 9, 2006
As Hizballah fires its Khaibar-1 rockets into Israel, Kuwaiti demonstrators recently chanted, ?Khaybar, Khaybar, ya Yahoud, jaish Muhammad sa yaoud? ? that is, ?Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return.? (The Kuwait Times rendered this as ?Khaybar, Khaybar, O Zionists, The Army of Muhammad is coming,? but this is probably sanitized for Western consumption: it is unlikely that the protestors chanted ?Zionists? rather than ?Jews? ? the former doesn?t rhyme in Arabic as does the latter, and the chant with ?Jews? is rather common.) Meanwhile, last Thursday, the Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanon?s leading Shi?ite cleric, praised Hizballah for waging a ?new battle of Khaibar.?
Reporting Fadlallah?s remarks, AP blandly noted that ?at Khaibar, the name of an oasis in what is now Saudi Arabia, Islam?s prophet Muhammad won a battle against Jews in the year 629.? Reality was somewhat different. As I explain in my forthcoming book, The Truth About Muhammad (coming October 9 from Regnery Publishing), Muhammad was not responding to any provocation when he led a Muslim force against the Khaybar oasis, which was inhabited by Jews ? many of whom he had previously exiled from Medina. One of the Muslims later remembered: ?When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him?.We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, ?Muhammad with his force,? and turned tail and fled. The apostle said, ?Allah Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people?s square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.??[1]
The Muslim advance was inexorable. ?The apostle,? according to Muhammad?s earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, ?seized the property piece by piece and conquered the forts one by one as he came to them.?[2] Another biographer of Muhammad, Ibn Sa?d, reports that the battle was fierce: the ?polytheists?killed a large number of [Muhammad?s] Companions and he also put to death a very large number of them?.He killed ninety-three men of the Jews??[3] Muhammad and his men offered the fajr prayer, the Islamic dawn prayer, before it was light, and then entered Khaybar itself. The Muslims immediately set out to locate the inhabitants? wealth. A Jewish leader of Khaybar, Kinana bin al-Rabi, was brought before Muhammad; Kinana was supposed to have been entrusted with the treasure of on of the Jewish tribes of Arabia, the Banu Nadir. Kinana denied knowing where this treasure was, but Muhammad pressed him: ?Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?? Kinana said yes, that he did know that.
Some of the treasure was found. To find the rest, Muhammad gave orders concerning Kinana: ?Torture him until you extract what he has.? One of the Muslims built a fire on Kinana?s chest, but Kinana would not give up his secret. When he was at the point of death, one of the Muslims beheaded him.[4] Kinana?s wife was taken as a war prize; Muhammad claimed her for himself and hastily arranged a wedding ceremony that night. He halted the Muslims? caravan out of Khaybar later that night in order to consummate the marriage.[5]
Muhammad agreed to let the people of Khaybar to go into exile, allowing them to keep as much of their property as they could carry.[6] The Prophet of Islam, however, commanded them to leave behind all their gold and silver.[7] He had intended to expel all of them, but some, who were farmers, begged him to allow them to let them stay if they gave him half their yield annually.[8] Muhammad agreed: ?I will allow you to continue here, so long as we would desire.?[9] He warned them: ?If we wish to expel you we will expel you.?[10] They no longer had any rights that did not depend upon the good will and sufferance of Muhammad and the Muslims. And indeed, when the Muslims discovered some treasure that some of the Khaybar Jews had hidden, he ordered the women of the tribe enslaved and seized the perpetrators? land.[11] A hadith notes that ?the Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives.?[12]
During the caliphate of Umar (634-644), the Jews who remained at Khaybar were banished to Syria, and the rest of their land seized.[13]
Thus when modern-day jihadists invoke Khaybar, they are doing much more than just recalling the glory days of Islam and its prophet. They are recalling an aggressive, surprise raid by Muhammad which resulted in the final eradication of the once considerable Jewish presence in Arabia. To the jihadists, Khaybar means the destruction of the Jews and the seizure of their property by the Muslims.
That Khaybar is repeatedly invoked today as a historical model for Hizballah should be a matter of grave concern for Western analysts and policymakers. It should play a significant role in discussions of whether and how a ceasefire should be pursued, and how much of a Hizballah presence can be tolerated indefinitely in Lebanon. But because most Western analysts are still dogmatically committed to the proposition that Islam has nothing, or nothing important, to do with the present global unrest, they recuse themselves from considering such data.
The costs of this willful blindness will do nothing but continue to mount.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq?s Sirat Rasul Allah, A. Guillaume, translator, Oxford University Press, 1955. P. 511.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibn Sa?d, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, S. Moinul Haq and H K. Ghazanfar, translators, Kitab Bhavan, n.d. Vol. II, pp. 132-133.
[4] Ibn Ishaq, p. 515.
[5] Muhammed Ibn Ismaiel Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari: The Translation of the Meanings, translated by Muhammad M. Khan, Darussalam, 1997, vol. 1, book 8, no. 371.
[6] Ibn Sa?d, vol. II, p. 136.
[7] Ibn Sa?d, vol. II, p. 137.
[8] Bukhari, vol. 4, book 57, no. 3152.
[9] Imam Muslim, Sahih Muslim, translated by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, Kitab Bhavan, revised edition 2000. Book 10, no. 3761.
[10] Ibn Ishaq, p. 515.
[11] Ibn Sa?d, vol. II, p. 137.
[12] Bukhari, vol. 5, book 64, no. 4200.
[13] Ibn Sa?d, vol. II, p. 142.
***Ok, long but worth reading and it explains how the acts of Muhammad directly shapes the global jihad today.***
Quote
It won't be Europeans, as we know them now that we'll be confronting.
In my eyes this is a pretty paranoid view of the world. Do you know any Europeans in person?
***I've known quite a few. I spent most of my times overseas in asia, not europe. I do however read a lot of european media and think i'm fairly well aquainted with today's western europe. Most of my DNA came from europe, if that is worth anything.
:-D***
Muslims are not one homogenic movement.
***Agreed.***
The muslims in Europe are very different from each other, each having their own agendas. I certainly admit that Europe is having a problem with uneducated, poor and badly integrated children of foreigners. Most of these foreigners are coming from a war torn country or a very archaic society. Their children are the second generation here. Unfortunately those well educated and with more financial means, are much better integrated than those from the working poor.
***I strongly suggest you look up another european author on the topic
http://www.amazon.com/Londonistan-Melanie-Phillips/dp/1594031444
I'll post here in the future on the Muslim Brotherhood. If you aren't aware of the group you may be surprized at the sophistication of their attempts to use both the "hard jihad" and the "soft jihad" together towards their goal of islamic world domination.***
There isn't the one muslim, as there isn't the one jew or the one christian. No devil with the turban swinging his sword, uniting secrectly to take over Europe. We have a very heterogenic mix of people. Some highly intelligent and some very desparate. But they're all together people like you and me.
***They are all people, some are like you and me. Others are very different. I wouldn't dream of walking into a crowded resturant wearing a bomb so I could blow the legs off of "infidels" and I doubt you would either. However, we are at war with those who would. You may not be interested in the global jihad, but the global jihad is interested in you.***
-
I don't think it's a done deal, but the trends don't look good.
Well, at least we agree that these are trends. As I wrote earlier, I don't deny that we're having problems with bad integrated immigrants in Europe. Not all of them are muslim.
Actually, Bat Ye'or is credited with coining the term "Eurabia". I suggest you read some of her writing on the subject. She is a Egyptian born British citizen who lives in Switzerland.
No, I didn't know that. Interesting. So a lot of american scribes picked up this topic from her?
Actually the term originates within marxism, if I recall correctly and not within the US. I'll look around and see if I can find some good examples of what I would consider european "political correctness" to cite.
That might be true. But political correctness for most Europeans is associated with Americans. Even though you may read some European media, there are very open discussions here. There is however a left-socialist movement in Europe which has problems coming on point and often reacting hysterically when it comes to the topic of immigration. If you want to call that a try of political correctness, I understand why you'd look at it that way.
Yes, but the EU as a structure is working to dissolve the european nation-state in any meaningful way, successfully for the most part, with some good but to my mind more harm to induvidual freedom.
I get the impression that Americans often equate Europe with France. But Europe is large with two very prosperous countries (Norway and Switzerland) not even belonging to the EU. From east to west there's great diversity, therefore when talking about Europe I'd wish you'd be more specific talking about the situations in various countries and not just talking about Europe as the whole of the continent. It would be more easy to argument.
So when the "Youths" light a car (or person) afire and yell "Allah Akbar!" I shouldn't assume there is a connection to islamic identity?
Well, basically I'd say its the lack of connection to their islamic identity. These youths are French. But the French society has put them between two worlds, kept in the twilight zone of the culture of their ancestors and their motherland France. They're feeling foreign when in Maghreb and they feel unwanted in France. How'd you react as a youth feeling unwanted in both your worlds?
Unfortunately the radical Islam now gives them strength. But you know the way youngsters are - as soon as they'd have their own job, car and girlfriend, they would let go of that and live like any other European kid would. There is a danger for radical islamists to start recruiting in this kind of surrounding. But there are also many youngsters which despite being angry are also angry at Islam. This may sound paradox, but most of these kids would just like to be accepted and respected.
As I've said before, France will face massive problems. I myself am not a great fan of french politics.
Khaybar, Khaybar
Thank you for the article. Still I think to find solutions for the future we'll have to bring some respect towards muslims the way we have to respect everyone who choses to believe in a religion. As stated before I myself don't belong to any world's great religions. I consider this a benefit. Also do I know some muslims which are very good people. Its hard to dehumanize someone you know.
I'm pretty much aware of the muslim brotherhood. Still we most be careful about not get lost in some kind of conspiracy theory. England, due to its Pakistani immigrants, indeed has bred a very radical movement of Islam. Again, this problem is more or less focused on London and not the whole of Europe. Though I agree on being very wary of such movements. As I already wrote to Marc, Germany has made first efforts to expel such:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1705886.stm
You may not be interested in the global jihad, but the global jihad is interested in you.
I can't run through the streets and shoot every muslim which looks suspicous. Therefore I have to rely on the cilvil laws and organs of my country to protect me. And I believe the country I? live in does a good job. As many many countries in Europe are struggling to find ways to handle this threat in compliance with their civil laws and constitutions.
-
Maybe a positive signal amongst all the bad voicing articles around here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6169398.stm
French muslims:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4376500.stm
"If on the one hand you tell people that they are French, but on the other hand treat them as outsiders, young men in search of an identity will feel lost.
They are faced with adults who tell him contradictory things. They are expected to get degrees, to be integrated, but in the end they face a wall."
-
I, in no way suggest running through the streets shooting muslims. I'd love to see a "reformed" islam that is compatible with the rest of humanity. For that to be would require a lot of islamic theology to be thrown out. I'm not sure much of the muslim world is willing to do it.
-
**This author amplifies my point.**
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=18170
Finding Out the Truth About Muhammad
by John Hawkins
Posted Nov 22, 2006
Yesterday, I interviewed Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch about his new book, ?The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion? (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company). What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation:
Now, Muhammad was around for quite a long time before he claimed to see visions and became a religious leader, wasn't he?
Muhammad was about 40 when he first claimed to have been visited by the angel Gabriel. According to the earliest Islamic traditions he did not actually start preaching immediately. He only told his wife and a few people who were very close to him for the first couple of years after that. But, then he got the command to begin to preach. It was at that point he began to develop a...following.
Now, I've heard that Muhammad borrowed heavily from the pagan religion many Arabs worshipped at the time, as well as Judaism and Christianity. Is that true?
Yes, there are clear signs in the Koran of influences from not only the Jewish and Christian scriptures, but also Jewish and Christian oral traditions and from the teachings in particular of Christian heretical groups, most notably the Gnostics, who denied the crucifixion of Christ and said that Judas had been made to look like Jesus and was crucified in his place. (That) notion appears in the Koran, in Chapter 4, where it says that they did not kill or crucify him, but it appeared so unto them. In Islamic tradition it is identified also here with Judas, that it is he who is on the cross, not Jesus.
Now, by today's standards, would Muhammad be considered a pedophile?
By today's standards, he probably would because you're talking about a man who did, according to the earliest Islamic traditions about the incident, consummate a marriage with a nine year old when he was in his early fifties.
Now, that being the case, however, it is also true that he is the supreme example for human behavior within Islam; he is imitated in this. That means that you have child marriage being very common all over the Islamic world where it is also not regarded as pedophilia today.
Now in his time, was it regarded as pedophilia or unusual for a man his age to marry a nine year old?
No. In his time, it was taken for granted. No one criticized him (for) it. No one felt like he was doing anything wrong by doing this. Only the fact that he is imitated makes it problematic.
Would it be fair to call Muhammad a warlord or bandit leader, similar to the sort of bad actors we have in Afghanistan today?
Well, certainly there are quite a few similarities and that's not an accident either because these are people who are pious Muslims and who believe that he gave them an example for human behavior -- and he did lead battles, he ordered his followers to fight on his behalf and to offer his enemies conversion, subjugation as 2nd class citizens, or war. So, there's considerable precedent within Muhammad's life, in his words and deeds, to support that kind of a life.
Along similar lines, would it be fair to say that Muhammad lied, pillaged, murdered, and condoned rape and the murder of infidels?
He said, "War is deceit." He ordered his followers to pillage and the Koran contains very detailed instructions, both in a chapter called the Spoils of War and elsewhere in the book, for dealing with the results of that plunder. ... Murder is certainly in the aspects of the invitation to infidels that I mentioned just now. He said to his followers that they should offer non-believers conversion or subjugation as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law or death. So obviously, murder is condoned in that context. Also, he ordered the assassinations of some of his enemies?including several poets who had made fun of him in their verses and rewarded the killers, including the killers of a ... pregnant woman and a man who was according to the Islamic traditions, over 100 years old.
Muhammad ... took for granted that his followers would be having sex with the women that they captured in these battles?the wives of the pagan warriors that they had killed and the wives of the Jewish tribes that they had killed. ... In the Koran actually, it says that a Muslim may marry up to four wives and have sex with the captives that his right hand possesses, which refers to slave girls captured in battle.
Now, images of Muhammad?we've got them on the Supreme Court, for example. There are plenty of them out there. When did that get to be such a big deal?
Well, it's really a big deal when a non-Muslim makes them. Images of Muhammad are rather common in Shiite Islam. Sunni Islam tends to reject that kind of image making. But really, the main offense in the Danish cartoon controversy and also an earlier controversy that CAIR tried to stir up about that (frieze) at the Supreme Court is that non-Muslims are transgressing the limits proscribed for them within Islamic law and are not to depict Muhammad or insult Allah or Muhammad in any way. So, you have a situation where these kinds of protests, the cartoon protests in particular, the murders of innocent people and riots worldwide, were ... an element of a larger effort to impose Islamic standards of behavior onto the non-Muslim world.
So, a big part of the issue was not necessarily the images, but that infidels had made them, right?
Yes.
The Shiia and Sunni (branches of Islam) came about in a dispute over succession to Muhammad. Is that correct?
Yes, exactly.
Can you explain to people how that came about?
The prophet Muhammad died rather suddenly and he did not leave clear instructions as to his successors, as to who would succeed him as leaders of the community. The Party of Ali it was called or the Shi'at Ali believed that only a relative of Muhammad could legitimately take over his role as the leader of the Muslim community that he created. The other party believed that it was not necessary that somebody be a member of the Prophet's family, but only that the best man be chosen.
So Ali was not chosen, was passed over for the first three times in the choice for the succession to the leadership, and finally was chosen but was rather shortly thereafter murdered and his sons also were murdered. ... These became the cardinal incidents for Shiite Islam and are celebrated today, yearly, in extravagant displays of mourning of which you've seen pictures. ...
... People cutting themselves with swords ...
... Yes, people cutting their heads with swords in mourning for Hussein, the son of Ali. Really, there's not much difference between Sunni and Shiite practice of Islam although the Shiites do tend to be more spiritually minded?have more of a mystical tradition?and are certainly more emotional and extravagant in their piety and have a little bit more of an emphasis on, let's say, the cult of the Saint. But otherwise, certainly in terms of jihad warfare against infidels, there's not any significant difference between the Sunnis and Shiites.
One last question: Tell us a little bit about the 12th Imam that (Ahmadinejad) seems to be so enamored with.
The 12th Imam is, in Shiite Islam, the 12th successor of Muhammad. In Shiite Islam, the Imams, beginning with Ali, have some of Muhammad's prophetic powers and some of his luminous spirit, such that they are infallible in matters of faith and are to be regarded with this quasi-mystical devotion. However, the 12th Imam, the 12th successor to Muhammad, is supposed to have disappeared as a child, is said to be still alive, and will return at a moment of great persecution and hardship for the Muslims. There's great excitement in Shiite Islam today and it seems to be held by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran that these are the times when the persecution of the Muslims is coming to the breaking point that will hasten the return of the 12th Imam who will come back to destroy the enemies of Islam and institute the rule of Islamic law over the world.
-
**Here is a good primer on Bat Ye'or views.**
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/2006/11/013959print.html
Bat Ye'or: Europe and the Ambiguities of Multiculturalism
Here is an address given by Bat Ye'or, the pioneering scholar of dhimmitude, at Paul Gerhardt Church in Munich, Germany, at Christian Solidarity International's 29th Annual Meeting, which was held from November 2 to November 4, 2006.
Ladies and Gentlemen
It is for me a great honour to be invited by CSI, an organization that has been so active on so many humanitarian fronts in order to denounce slavery, war crimes and genocide, and to alleviate human suffering. And I am thinking particularly of its struggle on behalf of human rights and dignity in Sudan since 1992, and CSI?s freeing over 80.000 Christian and other Sudanese slaves under the leadership of John Eibner and Gunnar Wielback.
The globalization of our world and the policies that have led to large-scale Muslim immigration, adopted by the European Community from 1973, has introduced into Europe conflictual situations and prejudices common in the Muslim world against non-Muslims that have been documented by Orientalists familiar with Islamic theology, law and history. But the politization of history initiated by Edward Said has obfuscated the root causes of Islam?s traditional hostility toward Jews and Christians from the seven century onward. Edward Said was a Christian raised in Egypt and educated in America; he taught English literature at Columbia University. A great admirer of Arafat and a member of the PLO?s top Committee, he endeavored to destroy the whole scientific accumulation of Orientalist knowledge of Islam and replace it with a culture of Western guilt and inferiority toward Muslims victims. The obliteration of the historical truth that he constantly pursued from 1978 ? starting with his book Orientalism ? as well as his hostility to Israel, has prevented an understanding and the resolution of problems that today assail Europe and challenge its own survival.
I will examine the relations between Islam and Christianity, Islam and Judaism, Judaism and Christianity and the tensions created by a Muslim immigration into a European Judeo-Christian civilization. I will speak of those issues in that order.
In the relationship between Islam and Christianity, we can examine both the theological and the political levels. The theological pillars of Islam are: the Koran which is Muhammad?s revelation; the Hadiths, a compilation of his acts and sayings which have a theological and normative value; and the early biographies written about him. According to these three sources, Islam sees itself as the primal and sole true religion. Islam is the pure religion of Adam and has preceded all others. The Koran uses biblical names like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus and others but they represent different people than those in the Bible ? and all are considered to have been Muslim prophets who preached Islam. Jesus is also a Muslim prophet called Isa, endowed with a different life; he brought a book: the Gospel, in which he preached Islam. We have, in fact, a Jesus named Isa, a Muslim prophet, and Yeshua, the Jewish Jesus, ?born in Bethlehem of Judea? (Matthew 2:1). According to several hadiths, Isa has a mission: at the end of time he will return to destroy Christianity and impose Islam as the sole religion over the whole world. These hadiths, often quoted in sermons, speak of him killing the pig, breaking the cross ? which means destroying Christianity ? and the hadiths continue: he will suppress the jizya or poll-tax and the booty will be boundless. The suppression of the jizya refers to the suppressions of all religion other than Islam. In the Islamic optic, what is Christianity? Christianity is a falsification of Islam and of the true message of Isa, which is the same as that revealed to Muhammad: Islam. It follows that a good Christian is a Muslim. True Christianity is therefore Islam.
And what about Muslim-Jewish relations? They are more complex but they follow the same pattern. When Muhammad emigrated from Mecca to Medina, he found there large Jewish tribes well organized with their synagogues and scholars. On their festive days they assembled and studied the Bible. Pagan Arabs were jealous and complained that they were illiterate and ignorant and didn?t have a book like the Jews and the Christians. Hence, Muhammad proclaimed himself to be the prophet whom the Jews were awaiting, an Arab prophet sent with a revelation in Arabic given by Gabriel, which was the same as that revealed to the Jews and Christians. The discrepancies between the Koran and the Bible were noticed by the Jews. Muhammad answered by accusing the Jews of hiding the truth and by saying that their Bible was a later falsification of the Islamic revelation given to the Muslim prophets: Abraham, Jacobs, Moses, and all the others. The true Bible was the Koran. Since Jewish objections hampered his predication, Muhammad decided to get rid of the Jews of Medina. Some were expelled and their belongings confiscated and shared among Muhammad and his followers; others ? from 600 to 900 males, according to Muslim sources ? were beheaded and their wives and children enslaved. This is the origin of Islamic hatred and accusations against Jews. Muhammad?s various decisions against the Jews in Arabia also set the theological jihadic laws against Christians and other non-Muslims. Muslim law gives to Jews and Christians the same legal status. That means that, in Islam, Jews and Christians are treated identically as ?the People of the Book? (ahl al-khitab). Christians, whatever their efforts to dissociate themselves from Jews or from Israel, are put into the same category of the Jews by Islamic law.
In short: Jews and Christians are left with what? The true Bible is the Koran, the Holy Scriptures of Jews and Christians are just falsifications, and all the biblical figures are Muslim prophets who preached Islam. In practice, what are the consequences?
1) Biblical narrative in the Holy Land is Muslim history, and Jews and Christians had no history there as they came after Islam. Their history and their sacred scriptures are in the Koran. This motivates Muslim opposition to the legitimacy of the State of Israel. The Bible is considered a travesty of Muslim history.
2) Because Judaism and Christianity originate from one unique trunk, which is Islam, these two religions are unrelated. It is false to assert that Christianity unfolded from Judaism. This is why the Islamized Churches in the Muslim world have developed a kind of Marcionism, abandoning the Jewish Jesus in order to link Christianity to the Palestinian Arab Muslim Isa. This trend which originated in the Palestinian and Arab Churches (Sabeel Centre in Bethlehem) is growing in Europe, supported by the antisemitic/anti-Zionist wave created by Palestinianism.
Palestinianism is the new European salvific theology created to help the Arabs destroy Israel, but which in fact is eating away at the roots of Christianity. Palestinianism teaches that if justice is granted to the Palestinians, suddenly the global jihad and the persecution of Christians in Muslim lands will disappear. ?Justice for the Palestinians? in reality means the elimination of Israel. This elimination will bring peace to the world. Since 1973, this has become a joint Euro-Arab policy. The cultural and media war to delegitimize Israel accredits also the Muslim belief that Jews and, therefore, Christians have no historical roots in the Holy Land. Another consequence of Muslim replacement theology is that when we speak of Judeo-Christian values, we are in fact referring to Muslim values. And when we refer to biblical narratives and figures, or to their iconography, we offend Muslims because they do not fit in the koranic model.
Now let us see the political context. Since Muhammad was a prophet, a legislator and a war leader, legislation and politics are united in the service of the religious expansion and domination of Islam. The ultimate goal is to impose Islamic rule over the whole world. In this perspective, Muslim political doctrine divides the world into two eternal enemies: the land of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the land of war (dar al-harb) inhabited by the infidels which must ? in the end ? be conquered by Islam. Between them no peace is possible, but only temporary truces in case Muslims are too weak to conquer them. This is the doctrine of jihad which is a comprehensive legal system of war based on theology that regulates every aspect of Muslim behaviour toward non-Muslims. Jihad is a religious duty incumbent on Muslims, individually and collectively, and this is preached regularly by imams in sermons worlwide.
Jihad covers several fields: military actions, terrorism, abductions, ransoming, enslavement, and armistice conditions, the jihad by the pen ? that is to say, propaganda ? and the jihad of the hearts, which means corruption. Jihad has been waged for thirteen centuries against non-Muslims and huge geographical areas have been conquered and their population subdued, enslaved, deported or massacred. The non-Muslim population targeted by jihad is given a choice: conversion to Islam or the payment of a ransom to the Muslim authority and recognition of its sovereignty. If they refuse both they will face war. After a land has been conquered and its population accepts to submit and pay a tribute for its security this population becomes a dhimmi people. It is ?protected? by a pact of submission, called the dhimma. Protected from what? From the jihad onslaught. Non-Muslims dhimmis are protected only as long as they pay the tribute, which is a poll-tax, and submit to oppressive and discriminatory shari?a regulations.
Islamic law covers the rights and obligations of dhimmis in great details. This has been the subject of my research. I call dhimmitude the Islamic system of governing the non-Muslim peoples subjected by jihad. This system is linked to jihad and like jihad it is a theological, political and legal institution. Dhimmitude is, in fact, the peaceful continuation of jihad because it is dhimmitude that destroyed the massive non-Muslim majorities that were conquered.
-
It is my opinion that we are now living in a period of reactivated jihad and dhimmitude. Those of you who have laboured in South Sudan and Darfur and have seen the atrocities there will recognize these legal tactics of jihad described in my books or in any Muslim texts on jihad. What is happening in Iraq evokes the events in the 8th century described in Mesopotamia by the Christian Syriac cleric Pseudo-Dyonisos of Tell Mahre, quoted in my study on The Decline of Eastern Christianity which is available here in a German edition. These events are confirmed at that same period by Armenian chronicles and by Egyptian priests describing Muslim internal feuds and atrocities in Egypt against dhimmis, or by Jews in Palestine, and with the passing centuries the chronicle of the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioche (in Syria), Michael the Syrian, that covers a period till the end of the 12 century. We have countless accounts on the devastation by the Arabs and Turks in Anatolia, in the Balkans, and all along the European Mediterranean coasts and islands.
Today, as in the past, jihadist terror is waged not only against Israel, Judaism, but also against the West, that is Christianity. Beheading the enemies of Islam, like the prophet did when he set a sacred model by beheading the Jews who refused to convert ? was repeatedly done by jihadists during all the jihad conquests of Christian lands. Abducting infidels for ransom fills up countless historical accounts. Suppressing by terror all criticism by infidels of the Muslim religion or policy is mandated in the land of dhimmitude. Jihad and dhimmitude are the two forces that have eliminated the indigenous non-Muslim populations from their Islamized homeland. Jihad today is displayed in all its traditional manifestations: military and economic warfare, terror, abductions, corruption for the control of the Western media, the universities and public opinion.
Dhimmitude is applied now against non Muslims ? mainly Christians ? in most Muslim countries. Shari?a laws or laws inspired by shari?a discriminate against non-Muslims, mainly Christians, the Jews having fled or been expelled. Now it is the Christians ? in Iraq, Syria, Egypt and elsewhere ? who are leaving because in Islam anti-Jewish hate is always connected to anti-Christian hate and vice-versa as it grows from the same source. Hence, anti-Zionist European policies adopted in order to protect Europe and local Christians from Islamism is useless.
Why have we regressed to a situation all too common throughout history till the 19th century and in some countries, the 20th? It is my opinion that 1973 was the fatidic date when political decisions were made that would lead Europe along the path to dhimmitude. It was the period ? after the Kippur War ? when European independent states, threatened with PLO terrorism and an Arab oil boycott, accepted to submit and adapt their foreign policies to Arab and Palestinian political demands. This is when the European Palestinian appeasement policy began. Europe helped spread the new death cult: Palestinianism, which is the sacralisation and legitimisation of the jihad against Israel. For decades Europeans have been conditioned by Euro-Arab Palestinian propaganda and Israel?s demonisation. To achieve this end a whole culture of denial of historic jihad and dhimmitude has been conceived and propagated throughout Europe. The responsibility for terror and war was deliberately shifted from the jihad ideology to Israel?s right of existence. Palestinianism is just the modern continuation against the Jews of the jihad onslaught waged against Christianity for over a millennium.
By justifying the Palestinian jihad against Israel, Europe entered into a suicidal dynamic. The repudiation of Israel?s historical legitimacy and its replacement by a jihadist world order with its own Islamic conception of justice denies Europe?s own sovereignty and legitimacy. In the Islamic context, Palestinians incarnate jihadist ideology against infidels and Muslim replacement theology; whereas, in fact, Israel represents the liberation of the Jewish people from the yoke of dhimmitude. For decades the European Union has provided the Palestinians with the intellectual, cultural and media ammunitions against Israel. It was Arafat, the subsidised ?mignon? of Europe, who invented modern international terrorism ? including air piracy against Israel in 1968 ? and created a culture of hate and a policy of chaos since September 2000 that have now become global. Europe?s alliance with the Palestinians and the Arab world against Israel and America was based on its own denial of jihad ideology. Because of this denial Europe encourage a large-scale Muslim immigration for economic and strategic interests. This is why Europe is today deeply submerged by an anti-American and anti-Zionist culture.
For Christians, Israel is central in this context, because jihad is waged in the name of Islamic replacement theology, whereby Isa replaces Yeshua or Jesus, and the Koran replaces the Gospel. Christians are linked to the Jews by the Bible. If Christians want to break from this bond, they will have to forego the First Testament, including the Ten Commandments, the Prophets, and the Psalms and somehow, link the Gospel to the Palestinian Muslim Isa of the Koran. This is the challenge that Christians are facing now. And this is the spiritual meaning of Israel for Christians now: either Christians will resist or they will convert and Europe will become one more Islamized Christian territory. The jihad against Israel is also a war against the Christian world.
It is my opinion that Europe has become the new land of dhimmitude and I will explain why. I have described in Eurabia, my last book, the causes that have triggered the dhimmitude of Europe. I will not develop this theme now but I will explain why politically and intellectually we have become dhimmis.
We accept to have our life continuously disturbed and threatened by the global jihad. From the moment the European Community, instead of fighting terror, submitted to the Palestinian threats, it lost the control over its own security. European policy with the Palestinians is a total failure because it was deliberately based on false assumptions and the denial that the PLO?s war against Israel was a jihad. Europe gave an unconditional support for Arafat, and paid billions of euros without any control to the Palestinian Authority. The result of European?s unilateral solicitude for the Palestinians has resulted in the election of Hamas, a terrorist jihadist movement. Europeans behave like dhimmis who have to pay tribute money for their security and the development of Muslim economies without even being thanked. Massive Muslim immigration, linked with the 56 Muslim countries weighs heavily on European policy. We have seen it during the Danish Cartoons Affair. According to Islamic law, dhimmis cannot criticise the Prophet or say that Islamic law has a defect without risking death. Hence, the Islamic blasphemy laws ? even at the United Nations ? have been imposed on us, and particularly on the Western media. The Islamists control the foreign, domestic and security policy of Europe through terror, the ongoing intifadas in France and the policy of chaos in the suburbs, jihadist-martyrdom bombings in Spain and England and persistent threats everywhere. It is such threats that keep the level of anti-Americanism and the hate against Israel so high in Europe.
The European policy of symbiosis with the Arab-Muslim world which I have described in Eurabia has set up a vast Euro-Arab demographic, political, economic and cultural zone encompassing immigration and multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a crucial dimension of the Euro-Arab strategic alliance. Since 1975 the texts of Euro-Arab meetings and of the EU require the establishment of cultural and political Muslim centres in European cities. The problem is that Muslims and Europeans have contradictory views on their common history. Europeans consider jihad a barbarous war causing huge massacres and enslavement, while for Muslims jihad represents a peaceful progression of Islam. Dhimmitude is a dehumanizing system, but for Muslims it is a generous tolerance offered to non-Muslims. In order to accommodate the Muslims and their integration in Europe, European leaders have promoted the Islamic view of history. Therefore, they have justified and lauded the tolerance of dhimmitude, as for instance the Andalusian myth. For this reason, Europeans ignore totally what is jihad and what is dhimmitude. While we are currently living a period of jihad, and while Europeans are already conditioned to dhimmitude, they do not realise it because the historical framework has been obfuscated.
Cultural jihad with its antisemitic, anti-American and anti-Western characteristics develops within the context of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism thus becomes the instrument for the subversion of Western thought, aimed at imposing Islamic historical and theological thinking such as the justification of Islamist terrorism ? based on the Muslim self-perception of victimhood. The erroneous affirmation that it was Islamic culture that has triggered European civilization in medieval period, is an attempt to prove Islam historical, cultural and demographical legitimacy in Europe, and consequently the implementation of shari?a principles today. It also affirms Islam cultural superiority over the West.
To conclude: There has been several interfaith dialogues but with poor results. Europe has paid billions to Muslim countries worldwide but the culture of jihad is flowering in spite of Europe?s appeasement policy. Palestinianism which is a replacement theology was the tool that led to Europe?s Islamisation and dhimmitude. By joining the Muslim jihad against Israel, the Christian West has obfuscated its own history, and now faced with a global jihad it is unable to assess correctly the situation and defend itself. Israel represents the liberation of man from dhimmitude, whereas Palestinianism represents jihad and dhimmitude ideology based on replacement theology. Europe, enslaved by Palestinianism, has chosen servitude instead of freedom. If we want peace to prevail, the Muslim world must abandon the jihadist ideology, it must recognise Jews and Christians as different and not see them as apostate Muslims. And this must start with Muslim recognition of the legitimacy of Israel, because jihad started against the Jews and it can only end with the rehabilitation of the Jews and Israel, which will bring the rehabilitation of all non-Muslims. We can achieve it if we speak the truth, if we teach in our schools and universities jihad and dhimmitude. Then, masses of peaceful Muslims, liberated from the jihadist ideology of hate, will join us to build together peace. But we cannot help them if, ourselves, we are doomed in dhimmitude.
Bat Ye?or, born in Egypt, is a pioneer researcher on ?dhimmitude? and ?Eurabia?. Her four major books translated from French into English are: The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam, (1985); The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, (1996), German edition: Der Niedergang des Orientalischen Christentums unter dem Islam, (2002); Islam and dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide (2002), and Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, (2005). German translation in preparation.
-
I don't want to clutter up responses to GM's interesting posts (which might have fit more logically in one or more of the other threads :wink: ) but I would like to take a quick moment to say that Quijote makes a fair point when he says that one of the causes (and it is only one of several) of the Paristineans intifada is that the French block their entry into society-- IMHO this is done through French economic policies which create tremendous barriers to the creation of new businesses and employment in order to protect big unions and other vested interests. The purpose of these policies is not anti-Muslim, but they do add heavily to the unemployment of the Paristineans.
-
G.M., I am completely aware of the historical background of Mohammed and why you call him they way you call him. I don't think we further need to elaborate on this, though I want to point out, that we should treat historical figures with a grain of salt. That means we should be careful about judging them in our understanding of right or wrong, nor should we believe everything being said. As I restrain from calling Jesus a "pathetic hippie freak who lacked the ganja"? to a christian or calling the toras a "bunch of rotten paper full of shitload" to a jew, i refrain from calling Mohammed a "genocidal rapist" to a muslim, unless of course I want to provoke a fight with each of them.
At my wednesday regulars' table I had a brief chat with some of my friends. Neither of them knew Bat Yeor or the term Eurabia (all of them highly educated people following the events of the day very closely). This is because her books are put in the same drawer as those conspiracy theorists that claim 9/11 to be staged by the US government (who get wide attention in some circles around here). When I read this article I find the same paranoia the muslim world has of jews and christians just the other way round: the fear of a global jihad wanting to take over the world and all muslims are participating.
To say it briefly, I don't like such polemic writings very much. They throw all kind of facts and knowledge together with a big load of personal emotion and make up a theory. Of course a book always gets more attention then someone like you or me writing on an internet forum. And of course its much harder to disprove a whole book, as I myself had to write a book now in order to convince you of my position.
If I'd put an american evangelist from kansas and a russian orthodox from siberia in one room, those two most probably wouldn't have very much in common, except that there are muslims, who consider them christians and therefore thinking, both want to defeat their culture. But that evangelist and the orthodox wouldn't even be able to communicate and if so, most probably not have to say very much to each other. Now if you take a muslim from algeria and one from pakistan, both would seem very much alike for us; dark-skinned, muslim and of course? equating the same threat. But these two have not very much to talk about with each other, as well. Now take a magreb from Paris, a turk from Berlin and a pakistani from London. Not very much in common except us considering them muslim.
It is the nature of polemic texts such as those from Bat Yeor to throw a truckload of half-truths at you. Before you would be able to take one argument apart, having a hard time to proof that it is completely wrong as it is a half-truth, you're being confronted with the next one and so on. A chain of arguments its hard to either proof right nor wrong.
I get the impression that there is certain faction in the US that is not so much interested in hindering Europe from becoming Eurabia (or enhance Euro-US solidarity) but pursuing own domestic policy agendas and grateful pick up arguments thrown at their feet like this.
Let me repeat; a lot of the problems Europe is having are of social nature. Similar to the problems the US is having with their hispanic and afro-american population. Talking about a global jihad conspiracy is only detriment to the integration of European muslims (which in some countries is very advanced and successful). Scribes like Bat Yeor create more problems than they would offer a solution for.
I'd love to see a "reformed" islam that is compatible with the rest of humanity.
I know a lot of muslims who manage this day by day with a highly acceptable result.
-
Quijote,
The problem is that indeed there is global cooperation between various jihadist factions from various geographical and ethnically diverse groups. This isn't wild speculation or conspiracy mongering but well documented fact. One real accomplishment of Osama Bin Laden is to have facilitated the global networking of these groups, both Sunni and Shia to wage jihad using the west's technology for it's asymetrical warfare. Once upon a time, there were jihadist groups that fought each other as much, if not more than the US, Israel or other targets. Now we collectively face a rainbow coalition of jihadis, from every part of the globe waging jihad with a unified goal in mind. Atheists, Buddhist, Hindus, Animists, Christians and of course Jews are all suffering at the hands of those who act "In the name of Allah". Islam demonstrates a special inability to coexist with other religions and cultures.
QUOTE:"As I restrain from calling Jesus a "pathetic hippie freak who lacked the ganja" to a christian or calling the toras a "bunch of rotten paper full of shitload" to a jew, i refrain from calling Mohammed a "genocidal rapist" to a muslim, unless of course I want to provoke a fight with each of them."
See, here is the problem. You are free to say what you wish about Jesus or Christianity or Jews and mostly you'll get a collective shrug from their adherents. Jews in paticular, especially these days live with constant implied and direct antisemetic slurs against them. Draw a cartoon of Mohammed and go into hiding. Make a movie about how Islam oppresses women and be shot and stabbed to death in the once placid Netherlands. You need not even do or say anything seen as "provocational" and still die at the hands of the jihadis. As we speak, pacifistic Buddhists are being slaughtered in Asia by muslims to the cry of "Allah Akbar!".
QUOTE:
"If I'd put an american evangelist from kansas and a russian orthodox from siberia in one room, those two most probably wouldn't have very much in common, except that there are muslims, who consider them christians and therefore thinking, both want to defeat their culture. But that evangelist and the orthodox wouldn't even be able to communicate and if so, most probably not have to say very much to each other. Now if you take a muslim from algeria and one from pakistan, both would seem very much alike for us; dark-skinned, muslim and of course equating the same threat. But these two have not very much to talk about with each other, as well. Now take a magreb from Paris, a turk from Berlin and a pakistani from London. Not very much in common except us considering them muslim."
Sadly you are so very wrong on this. The global jihad is networked. They communicate, train and support each other globally. The US has detainees from all over the globe captured in Afghanistan. A steady stream of jihadists with EU passports have been fighting in Iraq. When the children were murdered by the hundreds in Beslan, it wasn't just Chechens shooting belt-fed machine guns and detonating bombs, it was muslims from many different nations taking part in the "jihad". This is why a group of muslim students in Hamburg can end up creating a smoking hole in the Manhattan skyline and a few thousand less Americans one bright morning
QUOTE:
"I get the impression that there is certain faction in the US that is not so much interested in hindering Europe from becoming Eurabia (or enhance Euro-US solidarity) but pursuing own domestic policy agendas and grateful pick up arguments thrown at their feet like this."
Funny, I feel like it's 1937 or 1938 and i'm pointing out some trends in Germany, Italy and Japan and i'm getting "peace in our time" in response. Actually, it may be even worse than that. It's after Pearl Harbor and we still have people saying "Ya know, the Nazis aren't what most Germans are like and those Japanese pilots have hijacked the peaceful Japanese culture."
-
You are free to say what you wish about Jesus or Christianity or Jews and mostly you'll get a collective shrug from their adherents.
Sure, I want to see you doing that in the US bible belt.
As we speak, pacifistic Buddhists are being slaughtered in Asia by muslims to the cry of "Allah Akbar!".
Where is that happening?
They communicate, train and support each other globally.
Sure they do. But not as connected as you may wish. The jihadists not only lead an asymetrical warfare, they're also very asymetrical structured. The jihad nowadays is something you can download from the internet. You can get your fatwah (hope you know what that is), your plans for bombs, your motivational speeches and your violence porn. In terms of military intelligence IMO it would be a grave error to think that there is a larger ultimate network. A splinter cell can be organized and structured without doing any training. Therefore considering the terrorists to be a broad network may make you blind for all the small scale developments. In order to contain a splinter cell in any country, you have to check the security situation specificially and not generally.
The AQ idea has separated from Bin Laden. If you want to see it that way, Bin Laden has been quite successful in lighting the flame for his idea with the attacks on 9/11. Now it doesn't matter anymore if he's alive or not, his jihad is omnipresent - but not omnistructured.
IMO this is making them even more dangerous than a globally well structured and organized jihad.
A steady stream of jihadists with EU passports have been fighting in Iraq.
Well, that stream is coming most of all from Syria, Saudi-Arabia and Iran.
When the children were murdered by the hundreds in Beslan, it wasn't just Chechens shooting belt-fed machine guns and detonating bombs, it was muslims from many different nations taking part in the "jihad".
Wrong. Yes, these terrorists were muslims, but they were all exclusively coming from the nearer surrounding of Beslan. Somehow I don't see the point in this argument.
I feel like it's 1937 or 1938 and i'm pointing out some trends in Germany, Italy and Japan and i'm getting "peace in our time" in response.
Well, if you see it that way then IMO you're completely diminishing what happened in the time between 1933 - 1939.
"Ya know, the Nazis aren't what most Germans are like and those Japanese pilots have hijacked the peaceful Japanese culture."
Look, don't take me for being stupid.
-
I'd like to point out to the thread I opened about the World War for Wealth:
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1075.0
All the while the West is engaged in the middle east and in polemic wars against each other, there might be an India and China on the fast lane overtaking both of us...
-
You are free to say what you wish about Jesus or Christianity or Jews and mostly you'll get a collective shrug from their adherents.
Sure, I want to see you doing that in the US bible belt.
**Actually I live in a pretty "bible-belt" region of the US. I'm not aware of anything like what happened to Theo Van Gogh happening to those who critique christianity.**
As we speak, pacifistic Buddhists are being slaughtered in Asia by muslims to the cry of "Allah Akbar!".
Where is that happening?
**Thailand. I'll be happy to post lots of articles in whatever thread Crafty would like.**
They communicate, train and support each other globally.
Sure they do. But not as connected as you may wish. The jihadists not only lead an asymetrical warfare, they're also very asymetrical structured. The jihad nowadays is something you can download from the internet. You can get your fatwah (hope you know what that is), your plans for bombs, your motivational speeches and your violence porn. In terms of military intelligence IMO it would be a grave error to think that there is a larger ultimate network. A splinter cell can be organized and structured without doing any training. Therefore considering the terrorists to be a broad network may make you blind for all the small scale developments. In order to contain a splinter cell in any country, you have to check the security situation specificially and not generally.
**It's a distributed network, not a formal structure. In amny ways it's even more dangerous because of that.**
The AQ idea has separated from Bin Laden. If you want to see it that way, Bin Laden has been quite successful in lighting the flame for his idea with the attacks on 9/11. Now it doesn't matter anymore if he's alive or not, his jihad is omnipresent - but not omnistructured.
A steady stream of jihadists with EU passports have been fighting in Iraq.
Well, that stream is coming most of all from Syria, Saudi-Arabia and Iran.
**Passing through, not originating from.**
When the children were murdered by the hundreds in Beslan, it wasn't just Chechens shooting belt-fed machine guns and detonating bombs, it was muslims from many different nations taking part in the "jihad".
Wrong. Yes, these terrorists were muslims, but they were all exclusively coming from the nearer surrounding of Beslan. Somehow I don't see the point in this argument.
**Actually there were multiple arabs involved in the attack, not just Chechen and other muslims from the region. I've been to training with John Giduck who investigated the attack right after it happened. http://www.terroratbeslan.com/ I don't have the book with me at the moment or i'd cite exactly the breakdown of the Beslan terrorists.**
I feel like it's 1937 or 1938 and i'm pointing out some trends in Germany, Italy and Japan and i'm getting "peace in our time" in response.
Well, if you see it that way then IMO you're completely diminishing what happened in the time between 1933 - 1939.
**I don't think so. I see history repeating and again precious time is being wasted while the enemy is growing while the west sits in denial.**
"Ya know, the Nazis aren't what most Germans are like and those Japanese pilots have hijacked the peaceful Japanese culture."
Look, don't take me for being stupid.
** I don't take you for being stupid and it is not my intent to communicate that. No insult intended.**
-
No insult taken! :-)
Let's tackle this discussion from another point of view: Would you have any solution to offer as how Europe should step up against this threat of Eurabia?
-
Much stricter immigration laws, rigorously enforced. If one wishes to emigrate to the west, it should be because of a true desire to join that society, not just to enjoy the goodies while proclaiming how you hate the west and work to destroy it. The US doesn't allow legal immigrants welfare (illegal aliens are welcome to commit welfare fraud however). It's reasonable to not fund jihadist clerics who preach hatred in the mosques. If I was moving to Germany, i'd study the language, laws and culture in great detail to make sure i'd be able to function when I arrived. I wouldn't be upset if the street signs, and official documents weren't written in english and accuse you of discrimination because Germany isn't just like the place I left.
Intermarriage is a powerful intergenerational tool of integration. Remember, the Anglos and the Saxon were once warring tribes. If you move to the west from Pakistan, find a wife locally. Don't import a child bride to the west who is then hostage in a foreign land where she doesn't speak the language and doesn't know that domestic violence isn't legal in her new home. When in Rome, do as the Romans do, not the Pashtuns.
You can't have a workable nation made up of a "mosaic". It's all about the melting pot. The American experiment is imperfect, but we managed to do a lot with a vast mix of humanity and create what has been a cohesive nation out of it. You can have a nation of different "races"/ethnicities, but there has to be one common language and one loyalty to the nation.
The "West" has to move past the self destructiveness of "multiculturalism" and the constant self-flagellation of the less savory aspects of the west's collective sins. We (the collective western world) are not perfect, but do you see many people lining up to move from Berlin, or London, or Toronto to go to Somalia? Our good far outweighs our sins. The world's people vote with their feet when they can and we get the vote. We are in a long struggle for survival, we've got to remember what we are fighting for. Lots of people sacrificed so that we live the good lives we do, we honor their sacrifice be passing on to the next generations the best that we were given.
This is what leaps to mind thus far....
-
G M
I think you make some excellent points. However, I have to dig a little deeper:
1) Much stricter immigration laws, rigorously enforced How? Big walls? More border control agents? Incentives to home countries to keep their emmigrants home? Deportation? Quotas? For all the recent talk on border security, we seem to not be making any progress.
2) It's reasonable to not fund jihadist clerics who preach hatred in the mosques. I'm guessing a good portion of their money is not going through Bank of America or Credit Suisse. How about a thorough investigation into all mosques sources of funding? How about making mosque members accepted members of the community and not marginalizing them?
3) If I was moving to Germany, i'd study the language, laws and culture in great detail to make sure i'd be able to function when I arrived.
So would I, but what of those who don't have the resources/time/wherewithall to learn English before their arrival? What about cases of defection? Perhaps we should follow the example of New Zealand and only allow skilled migrants or individuals in highly specialized fields?
4) Intermarriage is a powerful intergenerational tool of integration. True, but unfortunately cultural custom often trumps all. In many countries and cultures (including some parts of our own), it is forbidden to marry outside of your religion, caste, race, etc. How do we break through these cultural barriers?
5) When in Rome, do as the Romans do Easier said than done. Some friends of mine returned recently from Seatlle,Washington. After a long two years of silence, their neighbors finally had a conversation with them before they moved. Why the long delay? The simple fact that they were from California. Now, imagine moving into suburban Iowa with your Pashtun bride and three kids. I'm gonna guess that doing as the Romans is going to take some work.
Viable integration into a society takes serious commitment from both sides. I think we need to re-evaluate our own track record on immigration/integration/cultural reform before we can start acting like we have the solutions to other countries ills.
-
1) Much stricter immigration laws, rigorously enforced How? Big walls? More border control agents? Incentives to home countries to keep their emmigrants home? Deportation? Quotas? For all the recent talk on border security, we seem to not be making any progress.
MD: All the more reason to get cracking. The Peggy Noonan's piece in the new "Immigration" thread nearby I think makes some excellent points.
2) It's reasonable to not fund jihadist clerics who preach hatred in the mosques. I'm guessing a good portion of their money is not going through Bank of America or Credit Suisse. How about a thorough investigation into all mosques sources of funding? How about making mosque members accepted members of the community and not marginalizing them?
MD: "MAKING mosque members accepted" ?!? Care to flesh this out a bit? As written it seems rather coercive.
3) If I was moving to Germany, i'd study the language, laws and culture in great detail to make sure i'd be able to function when I arrived.
So would I, but what of those who don't have the resources/time/wherewithall to learn English before their arrival? What about cases of defection? Perhaps we should follow the example of New Zealand and only allow skilled migrants or individuals in highly specialized fields?
MD: The problem is not that they arrive not speaking the host language, the problem is that many of them seem to not wish to learn.
Getting to the heart of the matter, the problem is that Islam is not just another idea about the Creator. It seeks sharia-- a theocratic state that does not give equal respect to other religions, that does not believe in free speech, and other fundamental American values. Because it seeks theocracy, Islam is also a political ideology. The question I am asking myself as I search for understanding is why our immigration policies should not treat it similarly to the way communism was treated during the Cold War.
4) Intermarriage is a powerful intergenerational tool of integration. True, but unfortunately cultural custom often trumps all. In many countries and cultures (including some parts of our own), it is forbidden to marry outside of your religion, caste, race, etc. How do we break through these cultural barriers?
MD: My understanding is that the US is doing a far better job of accepting Muslims into our society than Europe, but with 911 things are in a state of flux. With millions of Muslims in America, many of them with language skills desperately needed by our government, my understanding is that very few have come forward.
5) When in Rome, do as the Romans do Easier said than done. Some friends of mine returned recently from Seatlle,Washington. After a long two years of silence, their neighbors finally had a conversation with them before they moved. Why the long delay? The simple fact that they were from California. Now, imagine moving into suburban Iowa with your Pashtun bride and three kids. I'm gonna guess that doing as the Romans is going to take some work.
MD: Exactly so. But if the attitude is that "I am a Muslim who happens to be in America and as a Muslim I seek a Muslim society ruled by sharia (i.e. overturning our First Amendment)" instead of "How wonderful to come to the land of opportunity, let me learn the language and ways of my new home, let me raise my children to be Americans" then there is a real problem.
Viable integration into a society takes serious commitment from both sides. I think we need to re-evaluate our own track record on immigration/integration/cultural reform before we can start acting like we have the solutions to other countries ills.
MD: Until 911 America and its Muslims were doing pretty well. Since then its hard to see through the smoke.
-
G M
I think you make some excellent points. However, I have to dig a little deeper:
1) Much stricter immigration laws, rigorously enforced How? Big walls? More border control agents? Incentives to home countries to keep their emmigrants home? Deportation? Quotas? For all the recent talk on border security, we seem to not be making any progress.
**Because many of the republicans are in the pocket of big business and drag their feet on stemming the flow of low wage illegals and most of the democrats think that demanding that people obey the laws is some form of racist discrimination. Thus, for decades the borders haven't been secured. We've done amnesty several times saying "Ok, this this is the last time. We're serious. Really". The end result being that the flood of illegals has increased, waiting for the next amnesty. The borders need a fence. Not a "virtual fence". A secure barrier. Hammer those who employ illegals with civil and criminal penalties and the jobs will dry up. No money and many of the illegals will self-deport. Law enforcement, especially on the local level needs to be brought into enforcing immigration laws. We deal with illegals constantly. If we could arrest and put them into the federal system for deportation directly, it would make a huge impact.**
2) It's reasonable to not fund jihadist clerics who preach hatred in the mosques. I'm guessing a good portion of their money is not going through Bank of America or Credit Suisse. How about a thorough investigation into all mosques sources of funding? How about making mosque members accepted members of the community and not marginalizing them?
**Mostly in europe, the worst jihadists calling for the destruction of europe live off of the dole. Not only should they not be funded by the taxpayers, they should be booted out. Immigration is a privilege, not a right. As far as tracing outside funding of terrorist groups, it is one of the few success stories of the USG in the GWOT. Much has been done to dry up islamic charities that fund terror. Of course nation states like our good friends the Saudis fund terror globally and there is no easy way to end this right now. As far as not marginalizing muslims domestically, the problem is as Crafty pointed out, they marginalize themselves many times. Many of the allegedly "moderate" muslim imams that President Bush met with post-9/11 to intone the "Religion of Peace" mantra with have been arrested and connected to terrorist activities. CAIR, which likes to pretend to be a "civil rights group" is a documented front for jihadi terrorism. A Freedom House paper a few years back found that roughly 80% of US mosques had Saudi funded jihadist litature filled with what the left likes to call "hate speech" towards the west in general and of course the jews in paticular.**
3) If I was moving to Germany, i'd study the language, laws and culture in great detail to make sure i'd be able to function when I arrived.
So would I, but what of those who don't have the resources/time/wherewithall to learn English before their arrival?? What about cases of defection? Perhaps we should follow the example of New Zealand and only allow skilled migrants or individuals in highly specialized fields?
**For the most part, to legally enter the US requires that you meet high standards. I know US immigration laws quite well as my wife is a legal immigrant. She has an undergraduate degree. Fluent in english and speaks 4 other languages with a background in international business. She's been here for years and we are still waiting for a green card. As i'm her sponsor, i'm legally responsible for any potential costs she could impose on the taxpayers. Even if we were divorced, I must file with the USG my residence information every time I move until she is either naturalized or permanently leaves the US, because if she were to get any gov't assistance of any kind, Uncle Sam will then bill me for the costs, plus and other fees they might impose. US naturalization tests require english compitency and an understanding of US laws and culture. This is as it should be. What is frustrating is at the same time illegals flaunt the laws, use ERs for every medical need and impose costs on tax payers at every turn while making a massive impact on the criminal justice system and them DEMAND citizenship. Again, if you want to immigrate, then EARN it.**
4) Intermarriage is a powerful intergenerational tool of integration. True, but unfortunately cultural custom often trumps all. In many countries and cultures (including some parts of our own), it is forbidden to marry outside of your religion, caste, race, etc. How do we break through these cultural barriers?
**If you don't want to leave your culture behind, then stay where you are. I don't care if female genital mutilation is accepted where you are from. We lock people up for that in America, that's our custom. You come to our country, you learn are ways. Want to live under sharia? Then stay home. We speak english here and we live under the constitution and the rule of law, not sharia. If that's not what you want, don't come here. Very simple.**
5) When in Rome, do as the Romans do Easier said than done. Some friends of mine returned recently from Seatlle,Washington. After a long two years of silence, their neighbors finally had a conversation with them before they moved. Why the long delay? The simple fact that they were from California. Now, imagine moving into suburban Iowa with your Pashtun bride and three kids. I'm gonna guess that doing as the Romans is going to take some work.
**It's the immigrant's job to blend in. I can say firsthand that my wife has been treated very well in her time in the US. Most Americans have a sort spot in their hearts for immigrants as most all of us are descended from immigrants. When people see immigrants trying, they are almost always willing to help them. This doesn't mean that the street signs need to be in Hmong or some Serbo-Croat dialect. Again, the burden is on the immigrant to become one of us, not the other way around. We aren't bringing people here at gunpoint.**
Viable integration into a society takes serious commitment from both sides. I think we need to re-evaluate our own track record on immigration/integration/cultural reform before we can start acting like we have the solutions to other countries ills.
**Our track record is outstanding. Compare what you find in the US to what happens most elsewhere in the world. Most white Americans are an amalgam of europeans that in their home countries were often deadly enemies. Just in my extended family, there are multiple skin colors in the family photos. My dad's side of the family mostly came from Germany, i'm a voting member of a federally recognized Indian tribe with some distant african ancestry (My tribe had lots of escaped slaves intermarry), one cousin is married to a Swedish citizen of Russian ancestry, another is married to an American of Japanese ethinicity and another cousin is hispanic. All this and i'm from the "pickup truck with a gun rack" part of the country. The people I know in east coast cities tend to be even more diverse.
A few years ago, my wife and I were walking through a urban area on the Marine Corps birthday. The streets were filled with Marines in their dress blues. The skin colors ranged from sub-saharan african to pale scandanavian tones. All were Marines, all were Americans.
I've trained with different law enforcement officers all over the US. As a group, I can tell you that the color blue transcends almost always. A black cop from urban New Jersey is as much my brother as a white state trooper from the midwest might be.
Does this mean everything is perfect in the US? No, but we've come a long way in a short time. We are the first universal nation and we've done much more good than evil. We still have work to do but isn't not productive to dwell on our mistakes while ignoring everything we've done right.**
-
G.M., I think you're making some very valuable points there.
1.) Much stricter immigration laws, rigorously enforced.
With the advent of rightwing parties and neo-nationalist ideas rising, this will certainly happen in Europe. While US borders are pretty easy to control, European borders are not. Also Europe will have to give up its humanitarian mission to offer asylum to those being prosecuted in another country - basically 'Fortress Europe' coming true.
Even though I certainly support stricter immigration laws, I'd hate to see a xenophobic, anti-semitic and anti-humanitarian 'Fortress Europe.'
2.) It's reasonable to not fund jihadist clerics who preach hatred in the mosques.
Of course it is. But I go with Mig and say as well? "making mosque members accepted members of the community and not marginalizing them." After all religious freedom is one of the columns of western civilization. To answer Crafty's question as how this could look like;
a. Offering religious lessons in school for muslims as there are religious lessons for christians and jews. These have to be held in the country's native tongue by a certified teacher.
b. Also discrimination has to stop. A muslim does not equate a terrorist. It must be more easy for muslims who wish to integrate to get a job and be accepted into society.
c. A mosque has to be public. Its funding has to be laid open. The members list must be open and the preachers must undergo a centralized training by the state before they're being allowed to teach and preach.
3.) If I was moving to Germany, i'd study the language, laws and culture in great detail to make sure i'd be able to function when I arrived.
Yes, good point. A lot of European countries missed this. Now they're trying to make it up by offering language and cultural courses every immigrant has to do and finish with an exam.
4.) Intermarriage is a powerful intergenerational tool of integration.
It is. But;
a. there are few European women who want to marry a muslim
b. many muslim men are getting married (or proposed) at the age of 13 -15.
You can't have a workable nation made up of a "mosaic". It's all about the melting pot. The American experiment is imperfect, but we managed to do a lot with a vast mix of humanity and create what has been a cohesive nation out of it. You can have a nation of different "races"/ethnicities, but there has to be one common language and one loyalty to the nation.
That is true. But the US is the only country to do so and one of its strength is just that. You can't think that your model would work anywhere else, as the melting pot is the fundament of american culture. Europe has always been a mosaic of nations. That is our strength, that we have learned to live together instead of slaughtering each other (it took us 3000 years). We will never assimilate any immigrate, the European model is trying to understand the immigrants culture and see how we meet in the middle so each can keep his culture but still live together. But that requires consensus. A consensus radicals are not willing to make, as do the nationalists.
The "West" has to move past the self destructiveness of "multiculturalism" and the constant self-flagellation of the less savory aspects of the west's collective sins.
True. I agree with you on this point.
G.M., a lot of points you raised now are revolving around the question as we could stop the flow of immigrants to Europe. But how should we handle those Europeans whose believes are muslim, who are already here?
-
There is a difference between patriotism and malignant nationalism. I think the distinction is lost in europe's politics.You can love Germany without it becoming "Deutchland uber alles". You eject people who have outside loyalties, either to other nations or to the "umma". Applying to be an immigrant is like applying for a job. You are asking, not demanding. The weight is on the immigrant to prove they deserve citizenship.
Draw clear lines about what it means to be a German (Or other nation). If they can't or won't meet the standard, then they need to find another country. If Biergardens and women walking around without the hijab offend you, then look elsewhere for a place to live. I know that if I as an American was living in Germany and complained to Germans about how some aspects of Germany didn't jibe with my American cultural values you'd feel free to tell me off. Why should you then treat any other group any differently? Give non-intergrating immigrants the same venom usually only reserved for America.
-
There is a difference between patriotism and malignant nationalism.
Sure there is, you don't have to tell me, go and tell the Germans. Nationalism and Anti-Semitism is on the rise again.
I think the distinction is lost in europe's politics.
It's lost in german politics, not in the whole of Europe.
Basically you suggest to deport those who do not comply?
-
Yes.
-
How would you measure 'not complying'?
-
Failure to assume a German (Or other nation that applies) identity and allegence. You may not be able to read a mind, but you can observe their actions. The immigrant should speak, read, dress and act German. Any mosque preaching anything that clashes with German values shouldn't be tolerated. Germany doesn't allow swastikas, Mein Kampf or neo-nazi gatherings. The same laws should apply to jihadist groups. You couldn't flaunt your decadent western ways in an islamic country, the same rules should apply to them in the west.
-
The same laws should apply to jihadist groups.
Well, that is in effect. Its either in this thread or 'Islam in Europe' where it is written that Germany already expelled several preachers.
What is German? Mohammad Atta spoke, read, dressed and acted German. What about people like him?
What about those people in the second generation who already have a German passport and identity, but are caught between their cultural heritage and a society which doesn't give them a chance for integration?
-
The same laws should apply to jihadist groups.
Well, that is in effect. Its either in this thread or 'Islam in Europe' where it is written that Germany already expelled several preachers.
What is German? Mohammad Atta spoke, read, dressed and acted German. What about people like him?
What about those people in the second generation who already have a German passport and identity, but are caught between their cultural heritage and a society which doesn't give them a chance for integration?
Germany hasn't expelled enough yet.
As far as Atta, on the surface he was "culturally compitent" but he found the path to jihad from a Hamburg mosque.
People caught between need to choose one or the other. Germany or the umma. Failure to choose IS a choice.
-
Basically I agree with you.
Wait until I read 'America Alone', I think than we'll have more to disagree upon again... :-)
-
:-D
-
All:
I recently persuaded a high IQ friend of libertarian orientation to read Steyn's book. He has opposed Bush's Iraq decision with considerable vigor and intellectual rigor from a principled perspective from the beginning. I'm hoping to persuade him to come play here. Here is his response to Steyn's book:
Marc
=============
As you predicted, Marc, I found many ideas and suggestions that I can accept or even enthusiastically endorse.
First a comment about the broad themes: (1) that the developed world's low birth rates constitutes demographic suicide, (2) that Islamic people will soon constitute a political majority in many European countries, and (3) that Islam is both a political and religious force that is hostile and dangerous to all non-Muslims. I can agree with the broad outline presented by Steyn. His view of Islam's fundamental nature I see as controversial, but I agree that -- at a minimum -- some significant number of people who claim the Muslim heritage are in fact dangerous and hostile toward us.
Steyn won me over immediately in his Prologue:
"The state has gradually annexed all the responsibilities of adulthood ? health care, child care, care of the elderly ? to the point where it's effectively severed its citizens from humanity's primal instincts, not least the survival instinct. In the American context, the federal 'deficit' isn't the problem; it's the government programs that cause the deficit. These programs would be wrong even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover them each month. They corrode the citizen's sense of self-reliance to a potentially fatal degree. Big government is a national security threat; it increases your vulnerability to threats like Islamism ?" (page xx)
Unfortunately, however, I still find Steyn to be outrageously inconsistent. The words just quoted and many other passages appear to blame "big government" for the near destruction of our society. Other comments in this direction include: "? an apocalyptic scenario ? can best be avoided not by more government but by less ? by government returning the primal responsibilities it's taken from them in the modern era." Another one: "What flopped ? big time, as the vice president would say ? was federal government, the FBI, CIA, INS, FAA, and all the other hotshot, money-no-object, fancypants acronyms."
After expressing such enlightened views, how does Steyn then go on to say "I'm a supporter of the Bush Doctrine, of bringing liberty to the Middle East" ? Or, how can he say things like: "? there's a lot to be said for a great nation that understands its greatness is not an accident and that therefore it should spread the secrets of its success around" ?
First of all, I reject his belief in America's "exceptional" qualities. Maybe we were exceptional at one time, but now we are just a few years behind the Europeans in our implementation of a death-inducing welfare state. There are also ways in which we are unfortunately exceptional in a negative sense. In truth, our US government leaders don't have any idea what the "secrets of our success" were. Steyn himself fails to mention the most important determinants: the concepts of private property, free exchange, and the division of labor. Societies in the modern era pretty clearly achieve success in proportion to their implementation of these principles. These are the corner stones of liberty; liberty is not ensured by "democracy." In fact, when carried to logical extremes, democracy erodes respect and official support for private property and other fundamental liberties.
After watching this Iraq war unfold, how can anybody still think that the US government can make productive changes in Middle Eastern cultures? It's preposterous to believe that the "Bush Doctrine" contains any useful concepts whatsoever. Steyn even says this, in part, "This leaves option three: Reform Islam -- which is not ours to do. Ultimately, only Muslims can reform Islam." (page 205).
Another nice line from Steyn (page 207): "The threat to US power comes not principally from Chinese innovation or Indian engineering graduates but from America's own cultural indolence, just as the sack of Rome was a symptom of the fall of the empire rather than the cause." Right on.
As I keep saying, to save ourselves from this Steyn-articulated doom, we need to -- somehow -- undo the government policies and concepts that have destroyed our economic system's superiority and pretty nearly destroyed our people's will and abilities. With respect to Islam our problem is most significantly related to demographic and immigration issues. That's not to say that we should never whack somebody militarily, but the big problem is not going to be solved by the USAF, the Navy, or even the Marine Corp. Steyn agrees with much of this, but apparently still likes the ideas of "ending the Iranian regime" and "striking militarily when the opportunity presents itself." (page 206). Hasn't Steyn noticed that big government is at it's biggest and most expansive when at war? Historically, our most rapid movements toward socialism and fascism-like behaviors occurred during wars. I am afraid he is arguing that we should pursue two totally incompatible strategies simultaneously.
JMHO. What do you say, Marc?
===========
-
**Germany figures in this, so I thought i'd post it here.**
Published on The Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com)
The Rape of Europe
By Paul Belien
Created 2006-10-25 20:57
The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (12 October) that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now. Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: “We are watching the world of yesterday.”
Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. “I am too old,” he said. However, he urged young people to get out and “move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable.”
Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder’s advice. The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic. Just consider the demographics. The number of Muslims in contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million. It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families. Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities.
Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. “The dominant ethos,” he told De Volkskrant, “is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death.”
In a recent op-ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard (23 October) the Dutch (gay and self-declared “humanist”) author Oscar Van den Boogaard refers to Broder’s interview. Van den Boogaard says that to him coping with the islamization of Europe is like “a process of mourning.” He is overwhelmed by a “feeling of sadness.” “I am not a warrior,” he says, “but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”
As Tom Bethell wrote in this month’s American Spectator: “Just at the most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not working.” But there is more to it than the fact that non-religious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to “enjoy” freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children. Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.
“If faith collapses, civilization goes with it,” says Bethell. That is the real cause of the closing of civilization in Europe. Islamization is simply the consequence. The very word Islam means “submission” and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it.
Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe. They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.
This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European “islamophobes” who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission – just like in former days when they preferred to be red rather than dead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source URL:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1609
-
**A disturbing view of Russia's future as well.**
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/12/03/the-coming-muslim-majority-in-russia/
-
Marc posted a comment from me, just above, and I have decided to try my hand on this interesting forum. It looks like everybody here has lots of intelligent commentary on an amazingly broad array of subjects.
With respect to this topic of the Islamic challenge to Europe and America, I think the diagnosis shared in the preceding post is wrong or at least incomplete:
<As Tom Bethell wrote in this month’s American Spectator: “Just at the most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not working.” But there is more to it than the fact that non-religious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to “enjoy” freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children. Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist.>
The suffocating state is, IMO, more the point. Germany was the first of the welfare states and therefore has become one of the most damaging. "... many of them prefer to 'enjoy' freedom ... "? There is precious little freedom left in the European welfare states. I know a young couple who immigrated to Florida from France to start a single-store eyeglasses business -- because the French made it virtually impossible for them to do the same in that country! What does the word "freedom" mean if you can't start and run a small retail business? It seems to me that these factors, together with the intolerable tax burden, explain the lack of desire to raise children -- more so than a failure of religion.
TB
-
For what it's worth, i'd agree that the socialist economic death spiral the europeans have inflicted on themselves contributes to what is happening.
-
I agree with TB on the importance and power of the suffocating state.
Recent events in France such as the young elite school types successfully protesting the proposed law allowing companies to fire new employees more freely is but one example. France is a country that throughout the Cold War had, IIRC, 20-something percent of its population consistently vote Communist! The pro-union attitude is not pro-people or pro-growth, it is exclusionary in order to confer benefit that would not be attained freely. The cost is to the excluded-- in this case the Paristineans.
PS: Welcome aboard TB! Delighted to have you hear with us!
-
For what it is worth, Crafty Dog, here is an article from the dean of the Austrians explaining why state "interventionism" leads toward socialism. Ludwig von Mises says a "middle of the road" policy leads inexorably in that direction. He claims, in fact, that this very process created both Germany's and Britain's socialism. http://www.mises.org/story/2370
As I said before in the other forum, I think this "fight" with Islam is not something we can win in the same sense as we won WW II. More than anything, winning is going to require changing the trend with respect to state intervention and control. Mises, in the above article, argued that socialism is not inevitable. In my opinion, however, it's getting to be darn important to shift the trend. To save us from this Muslim takeover hypothesized by Steyn, we need to eliminate those factors that make continued migration so desirable -- as a first step.
Tom
-
Heya TB, welcome aboard!
Henryk M. Broder
Henryk M. Broder would be the living example opposing the theory that Europe would be unaware of its "fate" (when reading your comments here you could get the impression that Europe is already islamized). I highly respect Broder, he works with the Spiegel, my favourite magazine of which you often find excerpts here. Broder is very critical and loud - thats also good. But he belongs to a generation that has grown up in a "pure" Germany without any immigrants. Of course the world he has grown up has already gone - and its good that its gone. Its the old Germany where former nazi-party members still had control of society. He has a written a very good book but like Bat Ye'or, he's sitting at the sideline gloating, cheering and making jokes while Europe is going down instead of trying to find solutions.
Welfare state
In the Scandinavian countries the welfare state is up and running just fine. The welfare state itself doesn't seem to be a problem, its how you manage it.
In most of your posts I often find comments and opinions about France and conclusions drawn about that country taken to the situation in Europe all together. France has homemade problems, other countries have theirs. France can't be equated with the whole of Europe.
**A disturbing view of Russia's future as well.**
Russia has a hardcore neo-nationalistic anti-whatever movement. You'd rather see gulags filled with muslims again than a islamized russia (not much better).
Interestingly the picture you have of Europe and what I expierence "on the ground" differ extremely.
-
Interestingly the picture you have of Europe and what I expierence "on the ground" differ extremely.
Or have I alread become a muslim but don't know it yet? :-D
-
Quijote,
You do have a "ground truth" advantage here. Without giving out any more information than you'd prefer, can you give us a general idea of your geographical area and kind of work? Obviously, some fields more than others may deal with certain issues that we're discussing.
-
**This is a good idea, at least I think so.**
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/05/nuktest05.xml
Migrants face new 'Britishness' test
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 7:02am GMT 05/12/2006
Tests in the English language and the British way of life will be compulsory from next year for foreigners wanting to settle here, the Government said yesterday.
It will bring long-term immigrants into line with people who seek UK citizenship, who already have to sit the tests.
Liam Byrne: migrants must recognise responsibilities
Last year 180,000 people were granted settlement to stay. Some go on to seek British nationality but others may choose to retain their own while staying permanently.
Liam Byrne, the immigration minister, said: "It is essential that migrants wishing to live in the UK permanently recognise that there are responsibilities that go with this.
"Having a good grasp of English is essential in order for them to play a full role in society and properly integrate into our communities."
Applicants who already possess a good standard of English will take the existing Life in the UK exam.
Immigrants with poorer English can take a specially developed English for Speakers of Other Languages course with a simplified citizenship course.
Habib Rahman, chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said that subjecting applicants for indefinite leave to remain in the UK (ILR) to the same tests as those seeking British citizenship would send out "confusing messages".
"ILR does not confer the same set of rights and protections on applicants as UK citizenship," he said. "Persons with ILR are still subject to the immigration rules in a way that UK citizens are not.
"Also, this seems designed to place an extra hurdle in the path of people applying for ILR who have already fulfilled other criteria.
"It is evident that education providers cannot deal with existing demand for English language training. We question why the Government wants to generate more demand."
The Life in the UK test is aimed at those with a good grasp of English and their pass mark will be at least 75 per cent. Each applicant sits a 45-minute exam of 24 questions to show a basic knowledge of national culture.
Those less accomplished in English can attend a combined language and citizenship class instead. They will be expected to complete the course ''successfully" but do not have to pass the exam to gain citizenship.
The computer-based, multiple-choice examination are available at 90 test centres from today. Candidates who fail can retake the test as many times as they wish.
A Government handbook, Life in the UK, contains much of the information that will feature in the tests, including what to do if you spill someone's pint in a pub (offer to buy another).
-
Quijote,
Just to try and clarify my opinions on a couple of things. I have no knowledge or opinion about Steyn's claims of imminent "Islamification" in Europe. My comments are aimed at the general damage done by the welfare state concept. If there is an Islamic and demographic problem as severe as Steyn claims, my instincts are to blame the welfare state. My hostility to the welfare state is based on extensive readings in so-called Austrian School economics and observation of the welfare process within the US. By the way, I didn't mean to imply that the European countries are in any way homogeneous. If I seemed to generalize my anecdote about France, your point is very well taken -- I shouldn't do that!
I disagree that the welfare states are up and running well. Even in Scandinavia the problems are brewing. See "How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden" for another view on that issue
( http://www.mises.org/story/2190 ). The biggest problem with the welfare state concept is that it is progressive --- in the sense that the state tends to keep getting bigger and bigger. When the idea is pushed too far, you can lose liberty on nearly every dimension. If you have never read Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" you might find his views challenging.
-
**I wish I had written this. It captures my viewpoint very well on this topic.**
The Jihad: We're All in This Together
By Don Feder
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 8, 2006
Don Feder delivered the following speech to the Americans for A Safe Israel National Conference (“America And Israel – The Present Danger”) held in New York City on December 3, 2006. – The Editors.
You have a problem. It’s a problem shared by Jews in Hebron, Serbs in Kosovo, Hindus in the Kashmir, Catholics in Lebanon, and Americans walking the streets of New York.
Consider the inter-connectedness of the following incidents, all of which took place in the past few months:
In Indonesia, three Christian schoolgirls were beheaded.
In Iraq, a Syrian Orthodox priest was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered.
In Somalia, a nun was shot to death as she left the hospital where she worked, tending the sick and dying.
In Lebanon, just days ago, a cabinet minister was assassinated.
In Britain, authorities uncovered a conspiracy in which native-born Brits plotted to blow up several trans-Atlantic flights, killing as many as 3,000.
In Afghanistan, suicide bombers are at work again.
In Iraq, they never stopped. Additionally, the week before last, a group of worshippers were abducted from a mosque, doused with gasoline and burned to death in what’s described as “sectarian violence.”
In France, a high school philosophy teacher is in hiding after very credible death threats following publication of a September 19th commentary in Le Figaro.
Some 139 people died in riots in Nigeria, Libya, Pakistan, and Afghanistan – following the publication of Danish cartoons.
Europe is experiencing the worst wave of anti-Semitic violence since Kristallnacht. The former director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum reports there an average of 12 assaults a day on Jews in Paris.
In Kosovo, 90 percent of Serbs gave been ethnically cleansed from the province since 1999. The rest live in a state of siege.
In Mumbai, India, a series of blasts killed almost 200.
In Gaza, terrorists recently celebrated the latest “ceasefire” by raining more rockets on southern Israel.
And the leader of more than a billion Catholics received death threats and demands that he convert after giving a speech in which he called for a balance of faith and reason, and quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor.
What do the foregoing have in common?
To quote columnist Mark Steyn, in his excellent book America Alone: The End of The World As We Know It, it begins with an “I” and ends with a “slam.”
I am not saying that all Muslims are terrorists. I am saying that almost all terrorists are Muslims – the mother of all no-brainers – and that Islam is a faith that is, shall we say, terrorism-friendly. I challenge you to name another faith in which your entry into Heaven is assured by killing those of another faith in a holy war.
I am not saying that Muslims are inherently bad people. Most Muslims are like most people everywhere. I am saying that there are elements in Islam that incline adherents to commit the crimes detailed a moment ago.
I am saying – and let me be clear about this – that a faith embraced by as many as 1.3 billion people worldwide contains within it the seeds of the evil we see all around us – seeds which require only the right conditions to germinate. It all goes back to the Koran.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are in the midst of a world war, one every bit as deadly as the Cold War, and with a potential for devastation to rival World War II. Actually, the Cold War is a bad analogy. For perhaps the 20 years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, almost no one was willing to die for Communism. Today, ten of millions – perhaps hundreds of millions – around the world would gladly die, and kill, for Dar Islam.
But we make a fatal mistake if we think of Islam only in terms of suicide bombings, sniper attacks, death threats, forced conversions, female genital mutilation, honor killings, jihad-this and fatwah-that.
Every bit as important is what’s going on in maternity wards from Brussels to Bombay.
Of the 10 nations with the lowest birthrates, nine are in post-Christian Europe. And the ten countries with the highest fertility rates? That’s right – starts with an “I” and ends in a “slam.”
Fertility rates in the Muslim world look like this: Niger (7.46 children per woman), Mali (7.42), Somalia (6.76), Afghanistan (6.69), and Yemen (6.58). The Palestinian woman in Gaza who – at age 64 – just became the world’s oldest suicide bomber was the mother of nine and (at last count) the grandmother of 41.
Between 1970 and 2000, while the share of the world’s population represented by the industrialized nations declined from just under 30 percent to just over 20 percent, the share accounted for by the wonderful world of jihad rose from 15 percent to 20 percent.
Compared to the rest of the industrialized world, the United States is experiencing a veritable population explosion – with a birth rate of 2.11, just about replacement level. From there, it’s demographic winter as far as the eye can see: Canada (1.5), Germany (1.3), Russia and Italy (1.2) and not-so-sunny Spain (1.1). The latter three nations could cease to exist, as they are currently constituted, within the next 50 years.
According to a November 21st Washington Times story, by 2015, more than half the soldiers in the Russian Army will be Muslims. And you thought the Czar was bad! By 2020, over 20 percent of Russia’s population will be reading the Koran, religiously.
Within the lifetimes of some in this room, the UK, France Belgium, and the Netherlands could go Islamic green. For the present, Muslims comprise 10 percent of the French population. But of “Frenchmen” under 20, fully 30 percent share the faith of Osama bin Laden, Baby Assad, and Iran’s nut-cake leader.
You can talk all you want about population control being the happy result of higher standards of living, careers for women, sex education, contraception and access to abortion. In fact, it’s becoming the assisted suicide of the West. What it really comes boils to is this: Confident societies have babies. People with a sense of mission have children. Nations with a sense of destiny and faith in the future fill maternity wards, and nurseries and cradles.
Those that believe in God as a vague, philosophical concept (if He exists at all), don’t. Instead of the future, they put their trust in 401(k) plans, elaborate state welfare systems, and gated retirement communities.
There are still enough of those of us who care enough to act. But the hour grows proverbially late.
Everyone is so focused on their own thing that they miss the larger picture. Zionists rightly worry about Palestinian terrorism and fate of Israel should Judea, Samaria, and Gaza become Hamas-istan.
Serbs decry the destruction of ancient churches, monasteries, and shrines in Kosovo – not to mention the ethnic cleansing that followed NATO’s victory over Slobodan Milosevic – and worry about the province being permanently detached from Serbia.
Hindus anguish over the ongoing violence in Kashmir, supported by Pakistan, which has claimed more than 50,000 lives in the past 20 years, as well as terrorist acts in the rest of India.
Groups like Voice of the Martyrs meticulously document Christian persecution in the Muslim world. Lebanese Christians lament the demise of the last Christian country in the Middle East and Hezbollah creating a state-within-a-state. Coptic Christians complain about the treatment of their co-religionists in Egypt. And the beat goes on. But these are all part of a seamless chador. What happens in Kosovo affects the Kashmir. As Judea and Samaria go, ultimately, so go Lebanon and London.
In retrospect, it’s easy to see that a number of events in the 1930s were steps leading to the Second World War: Hitler’s rise to power, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, German and Italian intervention in the Spanish Civil War, the Japanese conquest of Manchuria, and so on. It’s always easier to see the interconnectedness of events and the significance of trends in retrospect – well after the fact. But at least after Pearl Harbor, most Americans understood that they were at war. It’s been five years since this generation’s Pearl Harbor, and most of us still don’t have a clue.
When word of Pearl Harbor reached London, Winston Churchill called Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The conversation ended with the British prime minister telling the American president: “Well, we are all in this together now.” As indeed they were; as they probably had been since the early 1930s, though almost no one was aware of it at the time.
Well, my friends, we truly are all in this together – Jews and Catholics, Lebanese Christians and Hindus, Orthodox Serbs, and Indonesian Christians. Until we begin to understand that, we have no hope of countering the global jihad. When Zionists start caring about the fate of Serbs in Kosovo, when Hindus support Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (designated the West Bank), when Serbs stand up for Indian Kashmir, then we will begin making progress.
-
**Very interesting, hadn't heard of Bassam Tibi before this article.**
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061214.wwente14/TPStory/National/columnists
Germans may regret ignoring ‘prophet' in their midst
MARGARET WENTE
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
BERLIN — Bassam Tibi is an unabashed alarmist. He is among Germany's foremost political scientists, and an expert on political Islam. And he says that even now — after 9/11, after Madrid, after 7/7, and all the rest of it — the European elites don't have a clue what they are up against.
“Europeans don't know what Islamism is,” he argues. “We are talking about a new totalitarianism. And Islamists are establishing themselves in Europe with great success.” They thrive, thanks to Europe's tolerance of the intolerable.
Dr. Tibi, a Muslim born in Syria, is persona non grata there.
He's not too popular in Germany either, where he has been accused of inciting Islamophobia. “It is most disturbing to see how writers who try to warn about the totalitarian character of Islamism are defamed as racists,” he says. “This wrong-headed political correctness prevents any honest discussion about the subject.”
This is not the message you will hear from any Muslim leader. The standard line is that extremism has been exaggerated, the media are to blame, and that the real problem is that Muslims have been unfairly targeted. But long before 9/11, Dr. Tibi began warning Europe had become dangerously vulnerable to radical Islamists. Today, many of these movements have their logistics, as well as their support systems, in Western Europe. In the name of multiculturalism, Muslims were encouraged to build parallel societies. Now, many have no intention of integrating into the mainstream.
It's true, he says, that the radicals are no more than a tiny minority — between 3 per cent and 5 per cent of the Muslim population, he guesses — but they are gaining ground. “They control most of the mosques and the welfare institutions, and they are the official speakers for Islam.” (Among the most revered is Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, now preaching from Qatar on Al Jazeera, who says Islam justifies suicide bombing.)
In spite of the new lip service being paid to integration, he says, Europe shows little interest in acting to promote it. Part of the problem is that there's no consensus on what it means to be European.
“Some people think there is no such thing as a common identity binding us together,” he says.
Dr. Tibi himself has argued for the importance of affirming just such an identity. He called it Leitkultur, or core culture, defined as the values of modernity — democracy, secularism, human rights, and civil society. The term was quickly adopted by Germany's conservative wing, and so the orthodox intelligentsia condemned it as quasi-racist. No surprise there. The mainstream intelligentsia of Europe also regards the United States as a far greater threat to world peace than radical Islamism.
There are now 20 million Muslims living in Europe, and the Islamic diaspora is expected to double and even triple in the coming decades. Will these Muslims become European citizens with a European identity? “Not if we allow the present situation to continue,” he says. “There's an inability to understand what is going on on the ground. The young men involved in the Paris riots know very little about Islam and they are not practising Muslims. But their world view is shaped by Islamism and their image of themselves is determined by Islamist-identity politics.”
Dr. Tibi is impatient with the endlessly repeated nostrum that Islam is “a religion of peace.” “When you study religion, you do not study texts, you study social facts. A Muslim boy is torching cars and he is thinking he is waging jihad. Religion has nothing to do with terrorism. But you can use it to legitimate terrorism. There is a conflict — it is social and economic, but it is articulated in religious language.” And the quest of converting the entire world to Islam, he insists, is an immutable fixture of the Muslim worldview.
I asked Dr. Tibi how many of Germany's 3.2 million Muslims share his progressive, secular views. “Maybe a few thousand,” he said.
There's a twist to this story, and it, too, is not a happy one. Dr. Tibi is getting out, moving to the U.S., where he has been a visiting professor at Harvard and Cornell — not only because his views are more respected there, but because, after 44 years, he still feels like an outsider here. “I love Germany,” he says. “I love the German language, and there are many decent Germans.
“But I believe Germany is an ethnically exclusive country. Bassam is not a German name. A Muslim is not a German. And there is no space for me in an ethnically exclusive country.”
Dr. Tibi is a prophet without honour in his own land. And that raises another uncomfortable question. If he can't become a German, then who can?
mwente@globeandmail.com
-
**Hirsi Ali has had to flee from europe, to the US.**
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ali16dec16,0,2351518.story?coll=la-home-commentary
Why they deny the Holocaust
On top of nearly constant anti-Semitic propaganda, much of the Muslim world hasn't even heard of it.
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali
AYAAN HIRSI ALI, a Somali immigrant who served in the parliament of the Netherlands until earlier this year, is the author of "Infidel," an autobiography to be published in February.
December 16, 2006
ONE DAY IN 1994, when I was living in Ede, a small town in Holland, I got a visit from my half-sister. She and I were both immigrants from Somalia and had both applied for asylum in Holland. I was granted it; she was denied. The fact that I got asylum gave me the opportunity to study. My half-sister couldn't.
In order for me to be admitted to the university I wanted to attend, I needed to pass three courses: a language course, a civics course and a history course. It was in the preparatory history course that I, for the first time, heard of the Holocaust. I was 24 years old at that time, and my half-sister was 21.
In those days, the daily news was filled with the Rwandan genocide and ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. On the day that my half-sister visited me, my head was reeling from what happened to 6 million Jews in Germany, Holland, France and Eastern Europe.
I learned that innocent men, women and children were separated from each other. Stars pinned to their shoulders, transported by train to camps, they were gassed for no other reason than for being Jewish.
I saw pictures of masses of skeletons, even of kids. I heard horrifying accounts of some of the people who had survived the terror of Auschwitz and Sobibor. I told my half-sister all this and showed her the pictures in my history book. What she said was as awful as the information in my book.
With great conviction, my half-sister cried: "It's a lie! Jews have a way of blinding people. They were not killed, gassed or massacred. But I pray to Allah that one day all the Jews in the world will be destroyed."
She was not saying anything new. As a child growing up in Saudi Arabia, I remember my teachers, my mom and our neighbors telling us practically on a daily basis that Jews are evil, the sworn enemies of Muslims, and that their only goal was to destroy Islam. We were never informed about the Holocaust.
Later, as a teenager in Kenya, when Saudi and other Persian Gulf philanthropy reached us, I remember that the building of mosques and donations to hospitals and the poor went hand in hand with the cursing of Jews. Jews were said to be responsible for the deaths of babies and for epidemics such as AIDS, and they were believed to be the cause of wars. They were greedy and would do absolutely anything to kill us Muslims. If we ever wanted to know peace and stability, and if we didn't want to be wiped out, we would have to destroy the Jews. For those of us who were not in a position to take up arms against them, it was enough for us to cup our hands, raise our eyes heavenward and pray to Allah to destroy them.
Western leaders today who say they are shocked by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's conference this week denying the Holocaust need to wake up to that reality. For the majority of Muslims in the world, the Holocaust is not a major historical event that they deny. We simply do not know it ever happened because we were never informed of it.
The total number of Jews in the world today is estimated to be about 15 million, certainly no more than 20 million. On the other hand, the world's Muslim population is estimated to be between 1.2 billion and 1.5 billion. And not only is this population rapidly growing, it is also very young.
What's striking about Ahmadinejad's conference is the (silent) acquiescence of mainstream Muslims. I cannot help but wonder: Why is there no counter-conference in Riyadh, Cairo, Lahore, Khartoum or Jakarta condemning Ahmadinejad? Why are the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference silent on this?
Could the answer be as simple as it is horrifying: For generations, the leaders of these so-called Muslim countries have been spoon-feeding their populations a constant diet of propaganda similar to the one that generations of Germans (and other Europeans) were fed — that Jews are vermin and should be dealt with as such? In Europe, the logical conclusion was the Holocaust. If Ahmadinejad has his way, he shall not want for compliant Muslims ready to act on his wish.
The world needs to be informed again and again about the Holocaust — not only in the interest of the Jews who survived and their offspring but in the interest of humanity.
-
Received the book a short while ago, already 3/4 through. Good reading. Already found a lot of stuff to agree on, but also some I critisize. Will give review shortly as soon as christmas holly (maybe new years eve) passed.
-
Looking forward to the review.
-
This datum from Stratfor.com today supporting Steyn's thesis:
JAPAN: Japan's population will suffer a 25 percent decline, dropping from 127.8 million in 2005 to 95.2 million in 2050, the Health Ministry reported. This is more than the previously forecast 21 percent decline. The decrease is a result of delayed marriages and falling birth rates. The latest report says the number of senior citizens will double to 40 percent of the population and the population under 14 years of age will fall from 13.8 percent to 8.6 percent.
-
All Tomorrow's Euro-Muslims
Books
BY JOSEF JOFFE
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/45039
Mark Steyn, the Canadian columnist who lives in "blue" New Hampshire, is a true "red-stater" whose genius ranges somewhere between Mark Twain and Ambrose Bierce. He has got punch, wit, and smarts, and if he were teaching in a North American humanities department, they would send him off to "sensitivity training" for life, without parole.
In "America Alone" (Regnery, 224 pages, $27.95) Mr. Steyn aims his rhetorical sandblaster at three targets: Europe, Islam, and the welfare state. Why this trio? Europe is dying for lack of babies, Islam produces a surfeit thereof, and the fault lies, au fond, with the postmodern welfare state that relieves the individual of ever more responsibility while shouldering him with boundless guilt about past sins, such as racism and colonialism plus an equally boundless "respect" for "The Other." Hence, he predicts: "Go to any children's store in Amsterdam or Marseilles ... Look at the women in headscarves or full abaya. That is the future."
The facts are obvious. European women are having 1.4 children (1.1 in Spain) Muslim immigrants 3.5 — and six in places like Gaza. Play the compound interest game, and somewhere down the line, Europe will turn into "Eurabia." Or as Mr. Steyn puts it in his inimitable prose: "By the next century, German will be spoken only at Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and Goering's Monday night poker game in Hell. And long before the Maldive Islands are submerged by ‘rising sea levels' every Spaniard and Italian will be six feet under. But sure, go ahead and worry about ‘climate change.'"
Mr. Steyn has a point. In the West, only three nations are at or above the replenishment rate of 2.1: America, Israel, and Iceland. Skip that demographic speck in the Atlantic; it is too small and remote to make for generalizations. But why America and Israel? These two outriggers of the West have a "project" — an intact national identity, a warrior culture, and foes all around them. They simply cannot afford to die out, and they have a sense of themselves — call it a mission — that bellows: "We will never slink offstage!" Mind you, it was the Brits who invented "the white man's burden," and the French who proclaimed a "mission civilisatrice" for themselves. But that's over and done with after two murderous world wars, innumerable defeats, and spirit-breaking upheavals. No wonder that they have chosen security über alles — a cradle-to-grave welfare state that stifles self-reliance and obligation to the future. Why should I have children? They deplete my time-budget as well as my wallet. Let the state take care of me tomorrow.
If the Europeans have thrown in the generative towel, Mr. Steyn plows ahead, the Muslims have not. They are lean, mean, and super-fertile, and they are thrust forward by a mighty sense of moral superiority as they look down on the decadent, libertine, and slothful West. Again, Mr. Steyn has a point. There is a lassitude about Europe that stands in stark, possibly tragic contrast to its glorious past — when its adventurers roamed the four corners of the globe as conquerors, when it produced everything, from the Renaissance to the fax machine, that makes up Western civilization.
This book is a relentlessly funny and felicitous polemic, but as in any polemic, its sparkling insights don't quite add up to a watertight brief. Sentences are honed to the sharpest, wittiest point, but, in the end, they leave you breathless and with a sense of du trop. You begin to scratch your head once your look past the sheer delight of reading.
Eurabia? There are only 20 million self-righteous and embittered Muslims in Europe — and 430 million soi-disant Euro-weenies. It will take a while before the former overwhelm the latter — a couple of hundred years at least. Meanwhile, these secular and Christian folks are not amoebae or lemmings, driven to their demise by forces they neither understand nor control. If September 11, 2001, was no wake-up call, July 7, 2005, in Britain was, and so were the murder of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam and a spate of foiled terror attacks since then.
Those Euros are beginning to see multiculturalism as an unforeseen passport to "parallel universes" in their inner and outer cities; they are taking a hard look at their mosques, and what is taught in them; and they are tightening up on immigration. The new buzzword is "integration," which is a more correct moniker for "assimilation."
Nor is America as exceptional as Mr. Steyn would have us believe. Berkeley is more like Berlin than Boise when it comes to the siren call of multiculturalism and "Otherism." There is altogether too much guilt and too little pride in the West. But what a magnificent civilization it remains. It may run out of babies, but will it also run out of spunk?
Perhaps even Mr. Steyn doesn't think so. His diatribe is a "device," as the journalist's lingo has it — a call to arms and to conviction. Eventually, appeasement must and will falter. Meanwhile, read this book and savor the fireworks. Grim as it is, it will make you laugh and then force you to think. Pedagogy could not be more pleasurable.
Mr. Joffe, publisher-editor of Die Zeit in Hamburg, taught American foreign policy at Stanford this fall, where he is also Abramowitz Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He just published "Überpower: America's Imperial Temptation."
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/21/nnames21.xml
Mohammed overtakes George in list of most popular names
By Sarah Womack, Social Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:02am GMT 21/12/2006
Mohammed, and its most common alternative spelling Muhammad, are now more popular babies' names in England and Wales than George, reflecting the diverse ethnic mix of the population.
The Office for National Statistics said there were 2,833 baby boys called Mohammed in 2006.
The name is 22nd in the list of most popular boys' names, moving up a place from last year.
Spelled Muhammad, it is the 44th most popular name and enters the top 50 for the first time along with Noah, Oscar, Lucas and Rhys.
There were 2,833 babies called Mohammed born in 2006 and 1,422 called Muhammad. The total exceeds the number of Georges (3,386) or Josephs (3,755).
The list of popular babies' names for 2006 also shows that the cult of celebrity is changing the baptismal tide.
There were 38 babies called Cruz (after David Beckham's third child) this year, raising the name from 1,508th to 650th. There were 14 Peaches (after the daughter of Bob Geldof), raising that name from 4,509th to 1,561st.
Jack has been the top boys' name for 12 years but Olivia has risen three places from last year. Last year's top girl's name, Jessica, dropped to number three, There are just three new names in the top 50 girls' names list - Imogen, Sophia and Anna.
The ONS said some of the girls' names gaining the most popularity this year were Evie (21), Freya (23), Poppy (30) and Jasmine (31).
As usual, the boys' top 50 is more stable, but Harrison jumped six places to number 36. Alfie, Cameron and Henry all rose five places to numbers 16, 30 and 39 respectively.
-
Ok, finished the book. Like it a lot. Preparing a posting.
-
Freya
Funny. That's a very germanic name. Freya, goddess of the old nordic sagas.
So there are 7141 Georges and Josephs up against 4255 Moes on the 44th place. Other than the muslims showing a *truly disturbing* lack of inventiveness, I still count more Brits here.
-
Islam converts change face of Europe
By ETGAR LEFKOVITS
Talkbacks for this article: 53
As many as 100,000 French and British citizens have converted to Islam over the last decade, according to a new book by an Israeli historian.
The figures cited by Hebrew University Prof. Raphael Israeli in his upcoming book The Third Islamic Invasion of Europe are representative of the fast-changing face of Europe, which the Islamic history professor says is in danger of becoming "Eurabia" within half a century.
He noted that about 30 million Muslims currently live in Europe, out of a total population of 380 million., adding that with a high Muslim birthrate in Europe, the number of Muslims living in the continent is likely to double within 25 years.
Israeli also cited massive immigration and Turkey's future inclusion in the EU as the primary reasons why the face of Europe will be indelibly changed within a generation.
European concerns over a fast-growing Muslim population is at the center of opposition to Turkey's entry into the EU, he said, as the inclusion of Turkey into the EU will catapult the number of Muslims to 100 million out of a total population of 450 million.
"The sheer weight of demography will produce a situation where no Frenchman or Dutchman could be elected to parliament without the support of the Muslim minority," he said Monday in an interview with The Jerusalem Post.
"Muslims will have a more and more decisive voice in the makeup of European governments."
"With Turkey as a member of the EU, the process will be accelerated, without [Turkey] it will be slower but it will still happen," he added. Turkey has strong relations with Israel.
The historian, who has authored 19 previous books, said that Muslim political power in Europe would directly impact domestic politics, including Europe's immigration policy, with millions of additional Muslims waiting at the door to gain entry to the EU as part of "family reunification" programs.
"Every European with a right mind has every reason to be frightened," Israeli said.
The 50,000 French and 50,000 British who have converted to Islam over the last decade, including many from mixed marriages, did so for personal convictions, romanticized notions of Islam, as well as for business reasons, while others see Islam as the wave of the future at a time when Christianity is on the wane, Israeli said.
He said that Muslims converting to Christianity existed but their numbers were significantly smaller.
Israeli noted that conversions in mixed marriages worked only in one direction since a Muslim woman who marries a Christian is considered an apostate in her community, and faces physical danger.
"It is time one should wake up and realize what is happening in Europe," he concluded. Israeli's book is due out in London in the coming months.•
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467792048&pagename=JPost%2FJPArt icle%2FShowFull
-
I guess I own you an answer:
Well, for some time I've been thinking about a proper response to this thread. All I can say is, I can't give you one.
Steyn's book is funny, easy to read. It's polemic, therefore provocative and also sparkling some good thoughts. I had a good time reading it.
Only problem is, when I look around, I don't see much of this happening. Sure, you're able to dig out some really frightening news articles. From your point of view, Britain must already be a muslim state. And I guess they're even more frightening when you're in sunny California. Europe lived through worse than this.
The future is unpredicatble as ever. Before I read the book I was lot more concerned about this topic, now I've become a lot more indifferent. Maybe because it's interesting to see an old saying coming true "The clouds are darker from the other side of the river."
Can't really write much more clever than this. :-)
-
I suppose I could post this on the Afg-Pak thread, but it seems like a pretty good example of "America Alone".
=============
ITALY: The Italian Senate voted against a measure to keep Italy's approximately 1,900 soldiers in Afghanistan. Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema had said the government should resign if the bill failed to pass, since it was a crucial test of the government's unity.
stratfor.com
-
POPE FEARS LOW EURO-BIRTH RATE: Europe appears to be "losing faith in its own future," Pope Benedict XVI said yesterday. Speaking on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, Benedict expressed concern about the "demographic profile" of Europe, where many are having fewer children. He said the trends ''favor dangerous individualism.''
LBN
-
WSJ
Canada's Cut-and-Run Crowd
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
May 14, 2007
The vote on a nonbinding resolution to bring the troops home had serious implications for Americans. But it didn't take place on Capitol Hill and it wasn't about Iraq.
This vote, taken last month, was held in Canada's House of Commons. Sponsored by the Liberal Party, the resolution called for the country to pull its soldiers out of Afghanistan in May 2009, when its NATO commitment expires. Though the ayes fell short of victory (134-150), it was only because the hard-left New Democratic Party, which wants the troops out now, refused to support it. Thus despite the loss, the resolution creates a lot of uncertainty about Canada's reliability in the struggle against radical Islam.
Canada is a founding member of NATO and has been the U.S.'s security partner in the North American Aerospace Defense Command (Norad) since 1958. Both NATO and Norad constitute a recognition that solidarity among Western societies plays a key role in the defense of our shared values and way of life.
Thus, when Canadian politicians start agitating to cut and run from the alliance in the middle of a war, it's a worrying development. One also has to ask whether a wavering Canada suggests a more widespread attitude among NATO members. Does the West have the fortitude to go the distance against this determined and lethal enemy?
Our neighbors to the North have been with us in the fight against al Qaeda since the first moments of the 9/11 attacks. On that day the top ranking officer on duty at Norad's command center in Colorado, which scrambled the jets that responded, was a Canadian. Canadian families opened their homes to thousands of stranded air travelers. In the weeks and months that followed there was no doubt about support from Ottawa.
The Liberal Party, led by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, didn't hesitate to commit the nation to the allied response. In 2002 Canada sent 800 troops into the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar and the country also made financial commitments. Between 2001 and 2011, Canada is slated to spend $1.2 billion in development assistance in Afghanistan, making it the single largest recipient of Canadian foreign aid.
Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin took the reins in December 2003 and Canada remained committed. In a Sept. 22, 2005 speech, Defense Minster Bill Graham praised the Canadian military's work in Afghanistan, noting that "this is not the time for Canada or the international community to abandon or even reduce our commitment to a country in which we have invested so much in human and financial resources over the past few years."
Despite all this, by the time Mr. Martin called an election for January 2006, Canadians had to face the fact that years of Liberal rule had gutted the military, and that their country's geopolitical relevance, once on a par with that of Australia, had seriously diminished. Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper won that election in part because he made restoring Canadian pride an issue. As if to seal his commitment to the effort, the new prime minister chose a visit to the troops in Afghanistan as his first trip abroad. "Your work," Mr. Harper told the soldiers, "is about more than just defending Canada's interest. It's also about demonstrating an international leadership role for our country. Not carping from the sidelines but taking a stand on the big issues that matter. You can't lead from the bleachers." Mr. Harper also led and won a vote, despite his party's minority status, to extend Canada's commitment in Afghanistan by two years, out to May 2009.
There are now 2,500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan and they are doing some of the heaviest lifting. Unlike many other NATO partners, which limit their troops' participation to the more pacified north, Canadian soldiers are fighting in the south alongside U.S., British and Afghan units. Last year Canada took command of NATO operations around Kandahar. Violence escalated again this spring as allied forces launched another offensive against the Taliban. This has coincided with an increase in Canadian casualties. Fifty-four Canadian soldiers have been killed since 2002 and nine of those died in a 10-day period in April, commencing on Easter Sunday.
We are now into the sixth year of this war and polls suggest the public is growing tired of it. Public weariness is not surprising, particularly since the enemy is tied up in the heroin trade and is empowered by civilians who make their living off the poppy crop and by robust demand in Europe. Just ask the Colombians how hard it is to fight the organized crime networks that traffic in prohibited -- and therefore high-value -- substances.
Slow progress is not the only thing working against public confidence. Recent charges that Afghan police abused detainees who were turned over to them by the Canadian military have also played a role and the left is having a field day, as if Canada has its very own "Abu Ghraib." The opposition senses a weakened Mr. Harper, and this explains why it is now attacking the very policy it designed -- despite the fact that holding up Canada's NATO commitments and helping secure and build an Afghan democracy were once noble Liberal goals.
The opportunity to make Afghanistan Mr. Harper's Iraq must be tempting to the Liberals. But by following this line of thinking, the party is playing right into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists, who are eager not only to destroy Afghan democracy but more to the point, Canada's.
In his speech in Afghanistan, Mr. Harper reminded the troops that two dozen Canadians lost their lives in the World Trade Center. "Since that time, al Qaeda has singled out Canada as one of the countries targeted for terror," he warned.
Since then it also has become clear that wealthy Saudis are trying to sow radicalism among Canada's significant Muslim population by promoting fundamentalist teaching in local mosques. There has also been an attempt to assert Shariah law in Canada, and at least one significant terror plot has been broken up. None of this is unrelated to what's going on in Afghanistan, and withdrawing from the fight would not reduce the risks to Canada. On the contrary, a Canadian surrender in Afghanistan would be a victory for terrorists and would energize jihad recruitment in Canada. It's easy to see why ambitious Liberals are willing to play the antiwar card so as to return to power. It's harder to understand why the Canadian public would go along with it.
• Write to O'Grady@wsj.com.
-
“In London last week, the Optimum Population Trust called for Britons to have ‘one child less’ because the United Kingdom’s ‘high birth rate is a major factor in the current level of climate change, which can only be combated if families voluntarily limit the number of children they have.’ ‘Climate change is now widely regarded as the biggest problem facing the planet,’ says Professor John Guillebaud. ‘We’re nearing the point of no return and people are feeling increasingly desperate and helpless. The answer lies in our own hands... We have to recognize that the biggest cause of climate change is climate changers—in other words, human beings, in the UK as well as abroad.’ As the professor sees it, having fewer children is ‘the simplest, quickest and most significant thing any of us could do to leave a sustainable and habitable planet for our children and grandchildren.’ The best thing we can do for our children is not to have them.” —Mark Steyn
-
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/obama-america-guns-2021119-gun-world#
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Mark Steyn: Guns and God? Hell, yes
Obama attacks two of the things that elevate the U.S. above places like Europe
MARK STEYN
Syndicated columnist
Our lesson today comes from the songwriter Frank Loesser:
"Praise The Lord And Pass The Ammunition."
Or as Barack Obama and his San Francisco pals would put it: God and guns. Loesser got the phrase from Howell Forgy, a naval chaplain at Pearl Harbor, who walked the decks of the USS New Orleans under Japanese bombardment, exhorting his comrades. When the line came to Loesser's ears, he turned it into a big hit song of the Second World War:
"Praise the Lord and swing into position
Can't afford to sit around a-wishin'…" – which some folks sang as "Can't afford to be a politician." Indeed. Sen. Obama's remarks about poor dumb, bitter rural losers "clinging to" guns and God certainly testify to the instinctive snobbery of a big segment of the political class. But we shouldn't let it go by merely deploring coastal condescension toward the knuckledraggers. No, what Michelle Malkin calls Crackerquiddick (quite rightly – it's more than just another dreary "-gate") is not just snobbish nor even merely wrongheaded. It's an attack on two of the critical advantages the United States holds over most of the rest of the Western world. In the other G7 developed nations, nobody clings to God 'n' guns. The guns got taken away, and the Europeans gave up on churchgoing once they embraced Big Government as the new religion.
How's that working out? Compared with America, France and Germany have been more or less economically stagnant for the past quarter-century, living permanently with unemployment rates significantly higher than in the United States.
Has it made them any less "bitter," as Obama characterizes those Pennsylvanian crackers? No. In my book "America Alone," just out in paperback and available in all good bookstores – you'll find it in Borders propping up the wonky rear leg of the display table for the smash new CD "Michelle Obama And The San Francisco Macchiato Chorus Sing "I Pinned My Pink Slip To The Gun Rack Of My Pick-Up,' 'My Dog Done Died, My Wife Jus' Left Me, And Michael Dukakis Is Strangely Reluctant To Run Again,' Plus 'I Swung By The Economic Development Zone Business Park But The Only Two Occupied Rental Units Were Both Evangelical Churches' And Other Embittered Appalachian Favorites."
Where was I? Oh, yes. In my book "America Alone," I note a global survey on optimism: 61 percent of Americans were optimistic about the future, 29 percent of the French, 15 percent of Germans. Take it from a foreigner: In my experience, Americans are the least "bitter" people in the developed world. Secular, gun-free big-government Europe doesn't seem to have done anything for people's happiness. Consider by way of example the words of Keith Reade. He's not an Obama speechwriter, he's a writer for the London Daily Mirror. And the day after the 2004 presidential election he expressed his frustration in an alarmingly Obamaesque way:
"Were I a Kerry voter, though, I'd feel deep anger, not only at them returning Bush to power, but for allowing the outside world to lump us all into the same category of moronic muppets. The self-righteous, gun-totin', military-lovin', sister-marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', nonpassport ownin' rednecks, who believe God gave America the biggest d*** in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong.'"
Well, that's certainly why I supported Bush, but I'm not sure it entirely accounts for the other 62,039,073 incontinent rednecks. Reade, though, does usefully enumerate some of the distinctive features that separate America from the rest of the West. "Self-righteous"? If you want a public culture that reeks of indestructible faith in its own righteousness, try Europe – especially when they're talking about America: If you disagree with Eutopian wisdom, you must be an idiot.
Obama and far too many Democrats have bought into this delusion, most thoroughly distilled in Thomas Frank's book "What's The Matter With Kansas?", whose argument is that heartland voters are too dumb (i.e., "moronic muppets") to vote for their own best interests.
Europeans did "vote for their own best interests" – i.e., cradle-to-grave welfare, 35-hour workweeks, six weeks of paid vacation, etc. – and as a result they now face a perfect storm of unsustainable entitlements, economic stagnation and declining human capital that's left them so demographically beholden to unassimilable levels of immigration that they're being remorselessly Islamized with every passing day. We should thank God (forgive the expression) that America's loser gun nuts don't share the same sophisticated rational calculation of "their best interests" as do Thomas Frank, Obama, too many Democrats and the European political establishment.
As for "gun-totin'," large numbers of Americans tote guns because they're assertive, self-reliant citizens, not docile subjects of a permanent governing class. The Second Amendment is philosophically consistent with the First Amendment, for which I've become more grateful since the Canadian Islamic Congress decided to sue me for "hate speech" up north. Both amendments embody the American view that liberty is not the gift of the state, and its defense cannot be outsourced exclusively to the government.
I think a healthy society needs both God and guns: It benefits from a belief in some kind of higher purpose to life on Earth, and it requires a self-reliant citizenry. If you lack either of those twin props, you wind up with today's Europe – a present-tense Eutopia mired in fatalism.
A while back, I was struck by the words of Oscar van den Boogaard, a Dutch gay humanist (which is pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool). Reflecting on the Continent's accelerating Islamification, he concluded that the jig was up for the Europe he loved, but what could he do? "I am not a warrior, but who is?" he shrugged. "I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. If you don't understand that there are times when you'll have to fight for it, you won't enjoy it for long. That's what a lot of Reade's laundry list – "gun-totin'," "military-lovin'" – boils down to. As for "gay-loathin'," it's Oscar van den Boogaard's famously tolerant Amsterdam where gay-bashing is resurgent: The editor of the American gay paper the Washington Blade got beaten up in the streets on his last visit to the Netherlands.
God and guns. Maybe one day a viable society will find a magic cure-all that can do without both, but Big Government isn't it. And even complacent liberal Democrats ought to be able to look across the ocean and see that. But, then, Obama did give the speech in San Francisco, a city demographically declining at a rate that qualifies it for EU membership. When it comes to parochial simpletons, you don't need to go to Kansas.
-
http://www.churchnewspaper.com/Editorial.aspx
Religious trends and our religious future
If recent reports of trends in religious observance prove to be correct, then in some 30 years the mosque will be able to claim that, religiously speaking, the UK is an Islamic nation, and therefore needs a share in any religious establishment to reflect this. The progress of conservative Islam in the UK has been amazing, and it has come at a time of prolonged decline in church attendance that seems likely to continue.
This progress has been enthusiastically assisted by this government in particular with its hard-line multi-cultural dogma and willingness to concede to virtually every demand made by Muslims. Perhaps most importantly the government has chosen to allow hard-liners to act as representing all Muslims, and more liberal Muslims have almost completely failed to produce any leadership voices to compete, leading many Britons to wonder if there are indeed many liberal Muslims at all, surely a mistake.
At all levels of national life Islam has gained state funding, protection from any criticism, and the insertion of advisors and experts in government departs national and local. A Muslim Home Office adviser, for example, was responsible for Baroness Scotland’s aborting of the legislation against honour killings, arguing that informal methods would be better. In the police we hear of girls under police protection having the addresses of their safe houses disclosed to their parents by Muslim officers who think they are doing their religious duty.
While men-only gentlemen’s clubs are now being dubbed unlawful, we hear of municipal swimming baths encouraging ‘Muslim women only’ sessions and in Dewsbury Hospitals staff waste time by turning beds to face Mecca five times a day — a Monty Pythonesque scenario of lunacy, but astonishingly true. Prisons are replete with imams who are keen to inculcate conservative Islam in any inmates who are deemed to be culturally ‘Muslim’: the Prison service in effect treats such prisoners as a cultural block to be preached to by imams at will. Would the Prison service send all those with ‘C of E’ on their papers to confirmation classes with the chaplain?! We could go on.
The point is that Islam is being institutionalised, incarnated, into national structures amazingly fast, at the same time as demography is showing very high birthrates. Charles Taylor’s new and classic work on the Secular Age charts the rise of the secular mindset and what he calls the ‘excarnation’ of Christianity as it is levered out of state policy and structures. Christianity is now regarded as bad news, the liberal elite’s attack developed in the 1960s took root in the educationalist empire, and to some extent even in areas of the church.
Today the Christian story is fading from public imagination, while Islam grows apace. There needs to be some fresh thinking in this area where the claims of Christ are sensitively explained. Our church leaders must develop ways of explaining this, as our feature on mission and evangelism this week demonstrates.
-
Horror In Hamburg
By Stephen Brown
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, May 30, 2008
A young female form lying crumpled on a sidewalk. Blood flowing from multiple stab wounds. Police cars. Ambulances. Flashing lights. Emergency personnel working frantically to save an innocent life that had barely begun.
It is a scene that is becoming all too common in Western Europe with its growing Muslim population, as the northern German city of Hamburg experienced in May yet another horrifying honor murder of a young female.
Morsal Obeidi, barely 16, arrived in Hamburg from the war-torn country of Afghanistan when she was three, probably barely remembering her country of origin in her new homeland. The German Muslim student, who had won a prize in her multicultural school for tolerance and peaceful co-existence with others, was stabbed 20 times by her 23-year old brother, Ahmed, who ambushed her at a commuter train station.
The reason for Morsal’s murder is a common one for female Muslim victims of honor killings who emigrate to the West with their families and grow up between two cultures: she was living too western a lifestyle.
“She had a different life than the family wished,” admitted Ahmed, who assaulted his sister so severely that he wounded himself and had to be treated in hospital.
According to one report, Ahmed’s younger sister started her teenaged rebellion when she was 14. The schoolgirl was tired of living by the rules of the family’s Afghan-Muslim culture that see the daughters confined at home and made to do housework when not at school while the sons have all the freedom they want.
Such girls from South Asian and Muslim communities are also monitored very carefully after reaching puberty, as the male members of the family are very concerned that they remain virgins until marriage, since this involves their “honor.” One German Muslim woman wrote that the physical attributes she developed upon turning 13 filled her Turkish father with “deep worry.” This male obsession with virginity is manifested in the expression, common in these traditional cultures, that “…a man’s honor lies between a woman’s legs.”
Ahmed was most likely one of those male family members concerned about his sister’s chastity. It was reported he watched Morsal very closely and, when he was not available, he had cousins, uncles and aunts do it for him.
Morsal’s rebellion against such strict control included such normal, western behaviour for teenaged girls as wearing “uncovered hair, makeup and jeans” as well as smoking, drinking and staying out late, all of which brought her into conflict with her family. But all in all, it was reported the young schoolgirl simply wanted the same freedoms her German classmates had.
Like in many families where honor murders occur, violence was already extensive in Morsal’s. Before her death, the teenager had suffered numerous assaults at the hands of her father, Ahmed and a 13-year-old brother, who had once knocked her tooth out. An older sister is also suspected of mistreating her.
“You dress like a tramp,” Ahmed said to his sister once before beating her up, his sense of moral superiority being somewhat misplaced, since he himself has an extensive criminal record, starting when he was 13. This ‘man of honor’ is a thief and had already knifed others in fights, once being stabbed eight times himself in an argument involving prostitutes outside a brothel.
Such domestic violence had caused the tormented Afghan-German girl to spend nights at youth shelters. But like many immigrant teenagers from traditional cultures, with their deep sense of family which they do not want to give up overnight, she always returned home. But the final straw leading to her tragic death may have been the young girl’s staying away from home for three nights in a row.
Sadly, Morsal’s was not the only honor murder to occur in Germany this year.
Last March in Berlin, an 18-year old boy stabbed his grandparents to death after his German mother had separated from his Turkish father and got a new boyfriend. The murders were carried out at the behest of the father, according a newspaper report, to restore his honor. The father and son had already assaulted the grandfather and boyfriend earlier in separate instances, while the father had threatened his wife’s family many times with death, causing his spouse to flee to a women’s shelter.
The wife’s unavailability is probably what caused her parents to be targeted as well the fact the grandmother approved of the separation (no surprise there). The son carried out the killing, since, like in other honor murders in Germany, the Muslim families often get the underage sons to do the killing because the maximum sentence for a minor for murder is only ten years, and often less.
Like in the Berlin case, a Kurdish man from Iraq murdered his wife for leaving him, for which he received a life sentence at his trial last fall in Munich. Leaving the husband can often be a death sentence for the wife in traditional Muslim families.
This particular killer showed no remorse whatsoever and was even smiling in the court room. Only three hours after a successful divorce court hearing in 2006, the murderer ambushed his ex-spouse on the street, stabbed her twelve times (the knife broke, stopping the assault) and then poured gasoline over her prostrate body lying on the sidewalk, burning her alive. This was all done before the eyes of their five-year-old son with the sadistic killer telling the court you can’t take children into consideration when it concerns honor.
Also at his trial, the Kurd said he had killed his wife because she had betrayed him and that his “religion and culture” forbid that. Laughably, he also partly blamed German laws for his murderous rage. He whined that in Germany “…only women have rights. So they become stuck-up and believe they can do whatever they want.”
The killer also admitted he first received permission from his wife’s father in Iraq to murder his daughter. When it is believed a woman has dishonoured the family, even if married, it is usually her birth family that kills her, since it was responsible for her upbringing and thus it is the one “dishonoured.”
This ongoing clash between the religious and cultural values of Muslim societies with those of western civilization manifested themselves in two other honor murder trials in Germany.
In Monchengladbach, a city in the Rhineland, a Turkish immigrant received a life sentence last February for shooting his wife and daughter to death on the street in 2007. Again, it was a case of a wife leaving her husband with their children after years of brutal treatment that included rapes and beatings.
Like the Kurd in the Munich case, this criminal also showed no remorse and also murdered his wife in dramatic fashion. After she had fallen to the ground with the first shot, the ‘man of honor’ put his foot on her and fired twice more directly into her head. One female Muslim lawyer at the trial said such theatrical executions are meant to show “…that the man is doing everything to restore his honor and that he defended himself against the rebellious wife.”
And last March in Bonn, a father was facing a life sentence for having murdered his 17-year-old daughter in 1993. The native Syrian, along with two nephews, strangled the young victim with a cord because, like Morsal Obeidi, she wanted to “live like German girls.” They later buried the body in a wood.
The father’s undoing was that he made his other daughter witness the murder as a warning as to what would happen to her if she ever decided to determine her own life.
“If you don’t behave according to our rules, the same thing is going to happen to you,” she was told.
Racked by guilt that made her life a living hell, the surviving sister informed the police of the honor killing 14 years later.
Like after the Hatun Surucu honor murder in Berlin in 2005 that awoke Germany to this social horror in their midst, German politicians and authorities are again falling all over themselves after the Morsal Obeidi killing in Hamburg. They say they will examine the youth shelters’ role in failing to prevent the tragic murder (as if they are to blame), as well as nebulously promising to do more to protect women facing such danger as well as explain to them their rights.
In reality, while these measures will help somewhat, much like a band aid, the real problem has to do with the values the murderers acquire in their countries of origin. As long as these men believe they have a cultural and religious right to control women, determine their lives (especially their sexuality), treat them like eternal minors, and even murder them when they transgress some archaic, tribal code of honor, then it appears there is not much Western countries can do after they arrive within their borders, since they despise our culture and, like the Kurd in the Munich trial, hold our laws in contempt.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that parts of western European cities, where Muslims form the majority of the population, are now ruled by sharia law where these anti-civilization values can grow and spread.
But every voice, especially those of victims like Morsal, makes a difference. A spirit of change exists in every culture, including the Muslim. It is the Muslim women that have to be compulsorily educated in massive fashion if honor murders are ever to be stopped. Making Muslim womens’ visas and those of their family members’ contingent on this understanding of compulsory education would benefit enormously in this effort. No half measures. More Muslim women would determine their own lives if they were not so afraid of honor killings. And a real sense of urgency is needed to deal with this social nightmare facing these young female souls.
But in the end, it is we Westerners who have to stand up for the life-affirming values we hold dear and change our laws substantially to reflect this. Western legal codes were written when the predatory and barbaric practice of honor murder was unknown due to the absence of these immigrant groups. This must be rectified and the new reality reflected in new laws, since the bottom line is that we cannot have women being killed at sixteen if we are to call ourselves human.
Stephen Brown is a columnist for Frontpagemag.com. A scholar and former news reporter, his field of expertise is Muslim forced marriages and honor killings. Email him at alsolzh@hotmail.com
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
June 12, 2008
AMERICAN EXCEPTION
Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech
By ADAM LIPTAK
VANCOUVER, British Columbia — A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article’s tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States do not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.
Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.
Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress say the magazine, Maclean’s, Canada’s leading newsweekly, violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up hatred against Muslims. They say the magazine should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self-respect.”
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions here last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean’s violated the law. As spectators lined up for the afternoon session last week, an argument broke out.
“It’s hate speech!” yelled one man.
“It’s free speech!” yelled another.
In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions — even false, provocative or hateful things — without legal consequence.
The Maclean’s article, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” was an excerpt from a book by Mark Steyn called “America Alone” (Regnery, 2006). The title was fitting: The United States, in its treatment of hate speech, as in so many other areas of the law, takes a distinctive legal path.
“In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one’s legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk, and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment,” Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called “The Exceptional First Amendment.”
“But in the United States,” Professor Schauer continued, “all such speech remains constitutionally protected.”
Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France.
Earlier this month, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined $23,000 in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep.
By contrast, American courts would not stop a planned march by the American Nazi Party in Skokie, Ill., in 1977, though a march would have been deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors there.
Six years later, a state court judge in New York dismissed a libel case brought by several Puerto Rican groups against a business executive who had called food stamps “basically a Puerto Rican program.” The First Amendment, Justice Eve M. Preminger wrote, does not allow even false statements about racial or ethnic groups to be suppressed or punished just because they may increase “the general level of prejudice.”
Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.
“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”
Professor Waldron was reviewing “Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment” by Anthony Lewis, the former New York Times columnist. Mr. Lewis has been critical of efforts to use the law to limit hate speech.
But even Mr. Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections “in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.” In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court’s insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence.
The imminence requirement sets a high hurdle. Mere advocacy of violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the government is not enough; the words must be meant to and be likely to produce violence or lawlessness right away. A fiery speech urging an angry mob to immediately assault a black man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement under the First Amendment. A magazine article — or any publication — intended to stir up racial hatred surely does not.
Mr. Lewis wrote that there was “genuinely dangerous” speech that did not meet the imminence requirement.
“I think we should be able to punish speech that urges terrorist violence to an audience, some of whose members are ready to act on the urging,” Mr. Lewis wrote. “That is imminence enough.”
Harvey A. Silverglate, a civil liberties lawyer in Cambridge, Mass., disagreed. “When times are tough,” he said, “there seems to be a tendency to say there is too much freedom.”
“Free speech matters because it works,” Mr. Silverglate continued. Scrutiny and debate are more effective ways of combating hate speech than censorship, he said, and all the more so in the post-Sept. 11 era.
“The world didn’t suffer because too many people read ‘Mein Kampf,’ ” Mr. Silverglate said. “Sending Hitler on a speaking tour of the United States would have been quite a good idea.”
Mr. Silverglate seemed to be echoing the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., whose 1919 dissent in Abrams v. United States eventually formed the basis for modern First Amendment law.
“The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,” Justice Holmes wrote.
“I think that we should be eternally vigilant,” he added, “against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death.”
The First Amendment is not, of course, absolute. The Supreme Court has said that the government may ban fighting words or threats. Punishments may be enhanced for violent crimes prompted by racial hatred. And private institutions, including universities and employers, are not subject to the First Amendment, which restricts only government activities.
But merely saying hateful things about minorities, even with the intent to cause their members distress and to generate contempt and loathing, is protected by the First Amendment.
In 1969, for instance, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction of a leader of a Ku Klux Klan group under an Ohio statute that banned the advocacy of terrorism. The Klan leader, Clarence Brandenburg, had urged his followers at a rally to “send the Jews back to Israel,” to “bury” blacks, though he did not call them that, and to consider “revengeance” against politicians and judges who were unsympathetic to whites.
Only Klan members and journalists were present. Because Mr. Brandenburg’s words fell short of calling for immediate violence in a setting where such violence was likely, the Supreme Court ruled that he could not be prosecuted for incitement.
In his opening statement in the Canadian magazine case, a lawyer representing the Muslim plaintiffs aggrieved by the Maclean’s article pleaded with a three-member panel of the tribunal to declare that the article subjected his clients to “hatred and ridicule” and to force the magazine to publish a response.
“You are the only thing between racist, hateful, contemptuous Islamophobic and irresponsible journalism, and law-abiding Canadian citizens,” the lawyer, Faisal Joseph, told the tribunal.
In response, the lawyer for Maclean’s, Roger D. McConchie, all but called the proceeding a sham.
“Innocent intent is not a defense,” Mr. McConchie said in a bitter criticism of the British Columbia law on hate speech. “Nor is truth. Nor is fair comment on true facts. Publication in the public interest and for the public benefit is not a defense. Opinion expressed in good faith is not a defense. Responsible journalism is not a defense.”
Jason Gratl, a lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Journalists, which have intervened in the case in support of the magazine, was measured in his criticism of the law.
“Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech,” Mr. Gratl said in a telephone interview. “We don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat.”
Many foreign courts have respectfully considered the American approach — and then rejected it.
A 1990 decision from the Canadian Supreme Court, for instance, upheld the criminal conviction of James Keegstra for “unlawfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group by communicating anti-Semitic statements.” Mr. Keegstra, a teacher, had told his students that Jews were “money loving,” “power hungry” and “treacherous.”
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Brian Dickson said there was an issue “crucial to the disposition of this appeal: the relationship between Canadian and American approaches to the constitutional protection of free expression, most notably in the realm of hate propaganda.”
Chief Justice Dickson said “there is much to be learned from First Amendment jurisprudence.” But he concluded that “the international commitment to eradicate hate propaganda and, most importantly, the special role given equality and multiculturalism in the Canadian Constitution necessitate a departure from the view, reasonably prevalent in America at present, that the suppression of hate propaganda is incompatible with the guarantee of free expression.”
The United States’ distinctive approach to free speech, legal scholars say, has many causes. It is partly rooted in an individualistic view of the world. Fear of allowing the government to decide what speech is acceptable plays a role. So does history.
“It would be really hard to criticize Israel, Austria, Germany and South Africa, given their histories,” for laws banning hate speech, Professor Schauer said in an interview.
In Canada, however, laws banning hate speech seem to stem from a desire to promote societal harmony. While the Ontario Human Rights Commission dismissed a complaint against Maclean’s, it still condemned the article.
“In Canada, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, nor should it be,” the commission’s statement said. “By portraying Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to ‘the West,’ this explicit expression of Islamophobia further perpetuates and promotes prejudice toward Muslims and others.”
A separate federal complaint against Maclean’s is pending.
Mr. Steyn, the author of the article, said the Canadian proceedings had illustrated some important distinctions. “The problem with so-called hate speech laws is that they’re not about facts,” he said in a telephone interview. “They’re about feelings.”
“What we’re learning here is really the bedrock difference between the United States and the countries that are in a broad sense its legal cousins,” Mr. Steyn added. “Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world.”
-
“Measure of America” report documents social decay of the United States
By Patrick Martin
Jul 19, 2008, 06:32
A new study released Wednesday, entitled “The Measure of America,” provides a wealth of data demonstrating the profound and deepening social decay of the United States. Commissioned by the Oxfam charity and several foundations, and published by Columbia University Press, the report documents, using government figures, the dramatic decline of American society relative to other advanced industrialized countries and the mounting social disparities within the US.
The study takes the methodology employed by the United Nations Development Report, widely recognized for its insights into the social conditions of less developed countries, and applies it for the first time to the study of an advanced country. The result is a portrait of America that shows much of the country’s population living in conditions that are closer to the “Third World” than to the “American Dream.”
The report analyzes figures provided by the US Bureau of the Census in its 2005 census of economic and social conditions. It thus lags significantly behind the actual deterioration in conditions of life, since the census was taken before the collapse of the sub-prime housing market and the ensuing plunge of the US economy into recession. A report based on today’s conditions would be even bleaker.
The three social scientists who prepared the study constructed an American Human Development Index which includes both median income figures and data relating to health, life expectancy and “access to knowledge” (school enrollment and the proportion of the population with college and professional degrees.) The result is a broader picture of social conditions than would be provided by a purely economic analysis.
In terms of the human development index, the United States has fallen from second place in 1990 (behind Canada) to 12th place. This decline continued through both the Clinton and Bush administrations, with the US falling to sixth in 1995, ninth in 2000, and 12th in 2005.
In certain respects, the decline is even worse. The US is 34th in infant mortality—with a level comparable to Croatia, Estonia, Poland and Cuba. US school children perform significantly below their counterparts in countries like Canada, France, Germany and Japan, and 14 percent of the population, some 40 million people, lack basic literacy and number skills.
Of the world’s 30 richest nations, which comprise the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States has the highest proportion of children living in poverty, 15 percent, and the most people in prison, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the whole population. With five percent of the world’s population, the US has 24 percent of the world’s prisoners.
The report notes: “Social mobility is now less fluid in the United States than in other affluent nations. Indeed, a poor child born in Germany, France, Canada or one of the Nordic countries has a better chance to join the middle class in adulthood than an American child born into similar circumstances.”
In overall life expectancy, the United States ranks an astonishing 42nd, behind not only Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all the countries of Western Europe, but also Israel, Greece, Singapore, Costa Rica and South Korea. The US spends twice as much money per capita on health care as any of these countries, but its citizens live shorter lives.
Two principal contributing factors were identified in the report—the epidemic of obesity, a disease primarily of poverty and miseducation, and the lack of health insurance for 47 million Americans. The report also noted that homicide and suicide are among the 15 leading causes of death in America.
The health crisis in the United States was underscored by a second report, issued Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research group based in New York. This study found that 75 million people are either uninsured or under-insured, one quarter of the population. Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, focused on the rising cost and diminishing availability of health care. “The central finding is that access has deteriorated,” she said.
A major factor is the immense administrative costs incurred by private insurance companies which spend billions of dollars to avoid paying claims. Much insurance company profit gouging is masked as “administrative” expenses as well. Administrative costs take 7.5 percent of US health care spending, compared to 5 percent in Germany and Switzerland, which also have private health insurers, and 1 percent or less in countries like Canada and Britain that have government-run insurance systems.
Assessing 37 separate healthcare indices, the Commonwealth study found that even in those areas where there was some improvement in absolute terms, other countries had improved by a far greater amount, pushing the US further down the table. For example, the US reduced the number of preventable deaths for people under 75 from 115 to 110 per 100,000 over the past five years. However, other countries, led by France, Japan and Australia, did much better. The US is now last among developed countries in this measure, having just slipped below Ireland and Portugal.
The Measure of America report also documents the widening social gulf within the United States, particularly in geographical terms, as it breaks down the census statistics to provide a table ranking all 50 states and all 438 congressional districts. The report greatly understates the degree of income inequality since the US economic census counts only wage and salary income, leaving out dividends, interest, capital gains and business profit, the principal forms of income for the upper class. But even with these limitations, the findings are devastating.
The executive summary of the report notes that “the average income of the top fifth of US households in 2006 was almost 15 times that of those in the lowest fifth—or $168,170 versus $11,352.” The top one percent of households possesses at least one third of the national wealth, while the bottom 60 percent possess just 4 percent of the total.
The authors observe: “Growing inequality in income distribution and wealth raises a profound question for Americans: Can the uniquely middle-class nation that emerged in the twentieth century survive into the twenty-first century? Or is it fracturing into a land of great extremes?” While not drawing any conclusion, they admit, “the answers to these questions will determine ... the future of America.”
There are staggering disparities in income, health care and educational opportunities from state to state, between urban and rural areas, and between relatively well-off areas like the Northeast and Pacific Coast and impoverished areas like much of the South and the Appalachian region.
The top ten states in terms of median income lie along the Eastern seaboard from Virginia to New Hampshire. The bottom five states include West Virginia and four states of the Deep South: Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas. It is worth emphasizing that the 2005 census figures were compiled before Hurricane Katrina devastated three of those states.
There are even greater disparities within states and regions. The poorest congressional district in the United States is not in the South, but in the central valley of California, around the cities of Fresno and Bakersfield, where tens of thousands of agricultural laborers toil under conditions not much improved from the time John Steinbeck wrote The Grapes of Wrath.
In the 20th district of California, only 6.5 percent of adults have graduated from college, and the median household income is $16,767, below the US poverty line. Meanwhile, ten of the 20 richest congressional districts are also in California, including the Silicon Valley and the upscale suburbs of Los Angeles and San Diego.
The richest congressional district is New York’s 14th, encompassing Manhattan’s east side: 62.6 percent of the adult population have a college degree and median family income is $51,139 a year (counting only wages, not the income from capital). A short subway ride away in the Bronx is the 16th congressional district, one of the five poorest in the US, where only 8.6 percent of adults have a college degree and the median annual income is $19,113.
Summing up the findings of the report, co-author Sarah Burd-Sharps writes, “Some Americans are living anywhere from 30 to 50 years behind others when it comes to issues we all care about: health, education and standard of living.” While the US remains one of the richest nations in the world, it is “woefully behind when it comes to providing opportunity and choices to all Americans to build a better life.”
Just as revealing as the figures provided by the Measure of America report is the response to it on the part of the American media and political establishment. The report was published by Columbia University, one of the most prestigious American colleges, and its co-authors held a press conference on Capitol Hill to announce their findings. But not a single major daily newspaper carried an account, nor was the study mentioned on any of the evening television newscasts.
The regional press in California reported the dismal last-place ranking for the 20th congressional district, but not the wider findings. And Talk Radio News Service, a web site serving the largely ultra-right talk radio industry, posted an item that turned the findings upside down, under the bizarre headline, “Report: Most Americans doing better than fifty years ago.”
The silence of the media was matched by the silence of the Democratic and Republican candidates for president. Neither Obama nor McCain made mention of the findings, although both have made photo-op appearances in poverty-stricken areas like eastern Kentucky, New Orleans and inner city Detroit.
In that context, it is worth pointing out that Obama’s campaign is making little effort in the five most impoverished states, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama and West Virginia. The last four have been virtually conceded to the Republicans. The Obama campaign hopes for a heavy turnout among Mississippi’s large black population to vote for the first major party African-American candidate.
In fact, neither party is able to advance any policy to address the vast decay of American society. The Measure of America and Commonwealth Fund reports are the latest in a series of studies that depict a society—ravaged by poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, ill health and inequality—that is going backward. The sclerotic two-party system cannot provide any answer to the social disaster because it is a corrupt instrument of the financial aristocracy that is plundering the country to pile up ever-greater wealth for itself.
-
Not sure why this is in this thread, but OTOH not sure what other thread it should go in :lol:
A lot of these numbers are quite at variance with what I understand to be the case. Do you have a URL for this?
-
I'd be curious to see how the numbers are skewed by illegal immigration, especially in the area of health insurance, income and mortality. I'd think the California stats would be especially impacted by illegal immigration.
-
http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/bg2064.cfm
August 27, 2007
How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America
by Robert E. Rector
Backgrounder #2064
Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were 37 million poor persons living in this country in 2005, roughly the same number as in the preceding years.[4] According to the Census report, 12.6 percent of Amer icans were poor in 2005; this number has varied from 11.3 percent to 15.1 percent of the population over the past 20 years.[5]
To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers—to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 37 million per sons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of house holds equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.[6]
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various gov ernment reports:
Forty-three percent of all poor households actu ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are over crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consump tion of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernour ished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
-
My bad...
Popped up in a StumbleUpon search, so I had to do some digging:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9621
-
Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago.
I find that statement ridiculous. A few generations ago, many houses had no running water, electricity, or access to basic services. It's comparing apples to oranges.
The thing that irks me about the article is that it somehow equates material possessions with quality of life. The tone is one of "Get over it "poor" people. You own stuff, so be happy."
Owning a bunch of crap doesn't mean that your neighborhood isn't gang and drug infested or violent, lacks quality social services, and is a just plain horrible place to live. Detroit, Compton, New Orleans' 9th Ward, the Appalachians, all horrible places where people own stuff and their lives suck. Please... :roll:
-
Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago.
I find that statement ridiculous. A few generations ago, many houses had no running water, electricity, or access to basic services. It's comparing apples to oranges.
The thing that irks me about the article is that it somehow equates material possessions with quality of life. The tone is one of "Get over it "poor" people. You own stuff, so be happy."
Owning a bunch of crap doesn't mean that your neighborhood isn't gang and drug infested or violent, lacks quality social services, and is a just plain horrible place to live. Detroit, Compton, New Orleans' 9th Ward, the Appalachians, all horrible places where people own stuff and their lives suck. Please... :roll:
Isn't it better to be "poor" in American than to be poor throughout most of the world? If we examine the gang and drug infested areas in urban America, what policy solution do you advocate that hasn't as of yet been attempted?
-
Am I correct in reading
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9621
to be a part of/connected to the ACLU?
If so, ugh. Speaking as a former member, the ACLU has negative credibiity for me.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261379/arid-uka-s-gratitude-mark-steyn?page=1
March 5, 2011 7:00 A.M.
Arid Uka’s Gratitude
Multiculturalism says he’s as German as Helmut and Franz. Except he’s not.
According to Bismarck’s best-known maxim on Europe’s most troublesome region, the Balkans are not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier. Americans could be forgiven for harboring similar sentiments after the murder of two U.S. airmen in Germany by a Kosovar Muslim.
Remember Kosovo? Me neither. But it was big at the time, launched by Bill Clinton in the wake of his Monica difficulties: Make war, not love, as the boomers advise. So Clinton did — and without any pesky U.N. resolutions, or even the pretense of seeking them. Instead, he and Tony Blair and even Jacques Chirac just cried “Bombs away!” and got on with it. And the Left didn’t mind at all — because, for a modern Western nation, war is only legitimate if you have no conceivable national interest in whatever war you’re waging. Unlike Iraq and all its supposed “blood for oil,” in Kosovo no one remembers why we went in, what the hell the point of it was, or which side were the good guys. (Answer: Neither.) The principal rationale advanced by Clinton and Blair was that there was no rationale. This was what they called “liberal interventionism,” which boils down to: The fact that we have no reason to get into it justifies our getting into it.
A decade on, Kosovo is a sorta sovereign state, and in Frankfurt a young airport employee is so grateful for what America did for his people that he guns down U.S. servicemen while yelling “Allahu akbar!” The strange shrunken spectator who serves as president of the United States, offering what he called “a few words about the tragic event that took place,” announced that he was “saddened,” and expressed his “gratitude for the service of those who were lost” and would “spare no effort” to “work with the German authorities” but it was a “stark reminder” of the “extraordinary sacrifices that our men and women in uniform are making . . . ”
The passivity of these remarks is very telling. Men and women “in uniform” (which it’s not clear these airmen were even wearing) understand they may be called upon to make “extraordinary sacrifices” in battle. They do not expect to be “lost” on the shuttle bus at the hands of a civilian employee at a passenger air terminal in an allied nation. But then I don’t suppose their comrades expected to be “lost” at the hands of an army major at Fort Hood, to cite the last “tragic event” that “took place” — which seems to be the president’s preferred euphemism for a guy opening fire while screaming “Allahu akbar!” But relax, this fellow in Frankfurt was most likely a “lone wolf” (as Sen. Chuck Schumer described the Times Square bomber) or an “isolated extremist” (as the president described the Christmas Day Pantybomber). There are so many of these “lone wolves” and “isolated extremists” you may occasionally wonder whether they’ve all gotten together and joined Local 473 of the Amalgamated Union of Lone Wolves and Isolated Extremists, but don’t worry about it: As any Homeland Security official can tell you, “Allahu akbar” is Arabic for “Nothing to see here.”
-
Isn't it better to be "poor" in American than to be poor throughout most of the world? If we examine the gang and drug infested areas in urban America, what policy solution do you advocate that hasn't as of yet been attempted?
Being poor in Slovenia is great. We are still socialist by heart. You know, the true kind. Free healthcare, free education, miniature crime rate, no gang activities, sub euroland average unemployment rate, no segregation, very good non expensive food !!
A word on Islam in Europe,
I add to the above finding of an European collegue, that the clouds seem darker from the other end. Islamization of Europe ? What ? Gentlemen, this is a modern migration of peoples. This doom and gloom article mongering tactic is something alot of the rilers are doing. "Look, look people. The gypsy stole an apple. We told you, the gypsy is a thief. Put up walls and barriers so the thief cannot reach you anymore".
It is with exactly the same rhetoric, and because of it, that I get from reading most of articles from GM, that Europe is starting to get alarmingly high nationalist responses, more and more so. Poland, Spain, Greece... Hungary (damn they are my neighbours!!) now has outspoken Fascist leadership. And I dont mean this in a recycled American anti freedom kind of context. Lynch the mystic, purge the unclean in the truest sense of the form. Paramilitary guard groups walking around Roma districts. To control the immigrant. To have a lid on the foreigner. Openly stating they will once again grant the state of Hungary direct access to the sea, like it used to have. No matter though, most of my American colleagues throw the term Fascism around like its used underpants. Im used to it.
Thank the gods that the Germans are relatively normal at the moment. When shit goes downhill there, better put on a mask, because shit will be flying everywhere.
Europe, especially with its patient, the Balkans, is a fascinating tutti frutti melting pot of jenesaisquoi.. Or should I say stove? With countless long forgotten grudges and vendettas that can be brought up to speed with the flinch of an eye. Depends on the need of course. We cant even decide what we want to be (tut tut, Ireland).
And that stupendous rhetoric that I speak of above, VERY dangerously and carelessly incites the population. All you need is to bend the will of the Serbs, through some twisted, half assed "affair" and you get genocide veterans lining up in parliament to ANSWER THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. And when you get a madman up in there, you get mad men everywhere around here again. And once more you will have people citing Star Wars over the news : "So this is how liberty dies...With thunderous applause."
I am affraid the time of simple polar ideology is past us. We can no longer speak the way we (or should I say you, I am still a kid, basically) were able to speak in the 80s and the roaring 90s. Its not a us vs them question anymore. Its a us vs us, if anything. And people, especially the younger generations, are starting to feel this.
To sum up, I am not afraid of the Islamization of Europe in the slightest. What I AM affraid of is this terribly misplaced narrative of an elated state of panic, that seemingly more and more anti-quasi left (true left doesnt exist anymore, not in Europe anyway) are utilizing. The pointing fingers and affair hunting. People are bored. The political continuum doesnt have any creative incentive since the great Fukuyama spoke. Much to our/his demise he corrected himself, and said he might be wrong. At least he is courteous. Its all just "you steal, he steals, they all steal.... corruption everywhere, incompetent politicians, foreigners invading our land, taking our jobs, bureaucrats using the worker, rocket shield here, walls there...," blah blah blah. This inert dubiosity has caused us yet again to reap what we have sown. People with a stingy ear for yellow press. All this is, is just yellow press.
Eurabia will come to pass, just like Rome has continued in the mantle of the Odoacer for a good century. In alot of ways, better off than before.
If a push comes to a shove here, I rather have petty social and religious incidents than a war in Europe. Again. GAHHH.
-
Honor killings, sharia, suicide bombers, attacks on jews. Yeah, muslims are really making europe a wonderful place.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12734188
14 March 2011 Last updated at 15:11 ET
Sweden suicide bombing suspect faces terror charges
Police convoy Ezeedem Al Khaledi arrived at Glasgow Sheriff Court amid heavy security
A 30-year-old man has appeared at Glasgow Sheriff Court in connection with a suicide bombing in Sweden.
Ezedden Khalid Ahmed Al Khaledi, described as a Kuwaiti national, faces three charges under the Terrorism Act and five others under immigration laws and banking regulations.
He made no plea or declaration and was remanded into custody.
Two people were hurt in two explosions in Stockholm in December. A man with an explosive device was later found dead.
The Stockholm bomber was named as 28-year-old Iraqi-born Taimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly.
He had settled in Luton with his wife Mona, with whom he had three young children - two girls and a boy.
He previously attended the University of Bedfordshire.
The attack was believed to be the first suicide bombing in Sweden's history.
Police raid
Detectives have been investigating whether Abdaly was supported by others or acted as a lone attacker.
Mr Khaledi was arrested following a police raid on the 19th floor of a block of flats in the Whiteinch area of Glasgow on Tuesday 8 March.
A convoy, flanked by armed officers and watched from a police helicopter, escorted him to the private hearing in Glasgow Sheriff Court.
Proceeding were translated into Arabic for him.
The first charge against him alleges he provided money for Abdaly.
He is also accused of possessing money and bank cards which could have been used for terrorism, and with entering into an arrangement to provide money for terrorist purposes.
Mr Khaledi also faces a charge that he falsely claimed to be a Kuwaiti national so he could claim asylum and benefits in the UK and of fraudulently opening bank accounts.
He is expected to return to court next week under conditions of high security.
-
Andraz:
Great to have you join the conversation here; I think you bring a perspective the interaction with which will enrich us all with greater intellectual diversity.
"Being poor in Slovenia is great. We are still socialist by heart. You know, the true kind. Free healthcare, free education, miniature crime rate, no gang activities, sub euroland average unemployment rate, no segregation, very good non expensive food !!"
When I visited Slovenia last year to do the seminar for Borut, I liked the country and its people very much. That said, when I hear the line you offer here, the following comments/questions occur to me:
The name of this thread "America Alone" comes from a book by Canadian intellectual Mark Steyn. In AA, the bulk of Steyn's analysis is through the analytical methods of demographics. What you say here may be true, for now, of Slovenia and other parts of Europe, but the larger picture painted by MS is that Europe is not replacing its indigenous populations precisely because of the tax and regulatory burdens being placed upon those who would work and support themselves in order to raise families and that in order to continue the wonders you describe above this leads to allowing substantial immigration by populations (e.g. Arab and Turk) not committed to Euro values but to other ones which are inconsistent with Euro values and that therefor the foundations for a large clash are being built and that it could get very ugly.
The demographic numbers as painted by MS are quite scary. Working from memory, 2.1 births are needed to maintain population levels, yet countries such as Germany, Spain, Italy and most of Europe have numbers which are dramatically below this-- often around 1.5 (!) or even as low as 1.3! This means the Euro populations are both aging and contracting dramatically-- thus presenting profound actuarial difficulties for the Euro socialist model.
The solution being tried for the past decades is what you call "a modern migration of peoples". The problem is that these peoples come from cultures profoundly in divergence with Euro values and with little to no desire to become part of Europe and its values. This is being aided and fomented by leftist/progressive/socialist/multicultural attitudes which are castrating Euro's self-respect and will to insist that those who come should come to be Europeans. This, as best as I can tell, is what sets the stage for the growing ugliness which you discern. Bottom line, the underlying trends are setting up a profound clash.
You may not be seeing it yet in Slovenia, but as best as we can tell looking from the outside, many parts of Europe are seeing and feeling the beginnings of this clash.
"A word on Islam in Europe,
"I add to the above finding of an European collegue, that the clouds seem darker from the other end. Islamization of Europe ? What? Gentlemen, this is a modern migration of peoples. This doom and gloom article mongering tactic is something alot of the rilers are doing. "Look, look people. The gypsy stole an apple. We told you, the gypsy is a thief. Put up walls and barriers so the thief cannot reach you anymore".
I have no idea at all about the gypsies, except that I know that Hitler had it in for them almost as much as he did for my people. (I am Jewish). But what does this have to do with the arrival and growing strength of Islam in Europe. Islam is NOT just another religion, it is a theocratic political doctrine as well, and one that has profoundly fascist elements (think of the various death fatwas and various murders (a.k.a. honor killings) for writing books, drawing cartoons, dating infidels, changing to other religions and so forth.
"It is with exactly the same rhetoric, and because of it, that I get from reading most of articles from GM, that Europe is starting to get alarmingly high nationalist responses, more and more so. Poland, Spain, Greece... Hungary (damn they are my neighbours!!) now has outspoken Fascist leadership. And I dont mean this in a "recycled American anti freedom kind of context" (your intended meaning here is not clear to me). Lynch the mystic, purge the unclean in the truest sense of the form. Paramilitary guard groups walking around Roma districts. To control the immigrant. To have a lid on the foreigner. Openly stating they will once again grant the state of Hungary direct access to the sea, like it used to have. (Not familiar with this-- at whose expense would this be? Slovenia's) No matter though, most of my American colleagues throw the term Fascism around like its used underpants. Im used to it."
Perhaps this is directed at me? Although I readily admit to be deliberately provocative with my choice of terms such as liberal (American use of the term) fascism and Islamic fascism, I like to think that I do it with some thought. In order to not overload this thread with too many themes we can continue discussing this aspect of the conversation on the thread about"Fascism"?
"Thank the gods that the Germans are relatively normal at the moment. When shit goes downhill there, better put on a mask, because shit will be flying everywhere."
Part of the Mark Steyn hypothesis is precisely that, due to demographic trends, the Germans ARE going to places you fear they will go. Already they begin their dance with Russia again.
"Europe, especially with its patient, the Balkans, is a fascinating tutti frutti melting pot of jenesaisquoi.. Or should I say stove? With countless long forgotten grudges and vendettas that can be brought up to speed with the flinch of an eye. Depends on the need of course. We can't even decide what we want to be (tut tut, Ireland)."
Well, putting aside the reference to Ireland because I don't know to what you refer :-) my understanding is that Europe was doing diddly to stop the terrible situation that was developing in the former Yugoslavia and that it was America, a bit under Bush 1 and much more under Clinton, that stepped in to stop a gathering genocide. Of course you know of this history much better than me and I stand ready, willing, and able for you to add to my understanding of these matters.
"And that stupendous rhetoric that I speak of above, VERY dangerously and carelessly incites the population. All you need is to bend the will of the Serbs, through some twisted, half assed "affair" and you get genocide veterans lining up in parliament to ANSWER THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. And when you get a madman up in there, you get mad men everywhere around here again. And once more you will have people citing Star Wars over the news : "So this is how liberty dies...With thunderous applause.""
Again we circle the same point-- is the underlying problem the rhetoric of those concerned by the trends resulting from demographic contraction, or is the underlying problem the demographic contraction caused by an overburdensome socialistic state and multi-culti wimpiness?
"I am affraid the time of simple polar ideology is past us. We can no longer speak the way we (or should I say you, I am still a kid, basically) were able to speak in the 80s and the roaring 90s. Its not a us vs them question anymore. Its a us vs us, if anything. And people, especially the younger generations, are starting to feel this."
Hell, I go back to the 60s and 70s :-D Anyway, IMHO the foundation principles which guide our respective social orders matter profoundly. It IS a matter of what you are willing to stand for. If Europe will not insist that its values of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc be respected, then its immigrants will not be inclined to do so-- and the conflict which you fear becomes inevitable.
When Spain came to conquer what is now Mexico, the Aztec Empire was based upon a religion of war, capturing the enemy, and cutting their still beating hearts from their chests and offering them to the Sun God. The concept of Freedom of Religion does not cover this! Nor does it cover "death fatwas and various murders (a.k.a. honor killings) for writing books, drawing cartoons, dating infidels, apostasy, teaching girls to read, women going out in public with their hair uncovered, and so forth."
"To sum up, I am not afraid of the Islamization of Europe in the slightest."
Maybe some time in the Muslim neighborhoods of Paris or Rotterdam, where the police fear to go, would change your mind?
"What I AM affraid of is this terribly misplaced narrative of an elated state of panic, that seemingly more and more anti-quasi left (true left doesnt exist anymore, not in Europe anyway) are utilizing."
Not sure of your meaning with "anit-quasi left".
"The pointing fingers and affair hunting. People are bored."
Or perhaps the factors which stifle them from breeding in numbers sufficient to maintain population have something to do with it? Perhaps more than "bored" the better term is "stifled"?
, , ,
"Eurabia will come to pass, just like Rome has continued in the mantle of the Odoacer for a good century. In alot of ways, better off than before."
Illiterate American that I am, the term Odoacer goes right over my head with nary a look back :-) but I find what you say here to encapsulate the essence of something I do not understand at all. How on earth is Europe better off as Eurabia?!?
"If a push comes to a shove here, I rather have petty social and religious incidents than a war in Europe. Again. GAHHH."
But what you may get is dhimmitude-- maybe not yet in Slovenia, but perhaps not so far away from you and perhaps in ways which will affect you in Slovenia.
Again, I respect what you bring to this conversation.
-
Hi Marc.
Thank you for the extensive reply and comments and sorry at the same time for the late response.
here goes :
MARC :"
When I visited Slovenia last year to do the seminar for Borut, I liked the country and its people very much. That said, when I hear the line you offer here, the following comments/questions occur to me:
The name of this thread "America Alone" comes from a book by Canadian intellectual Mark Steyn. In AA, the bulk of Steyn's analysis is through the analytical methods of demographics. What you say here may be true, for now, of Slovenia and other parts of Europe, but the larger picture painted by MS is that Europe is not replacing its indigenous populations precisely because of the tax and regulatory burdens being placed upon those who would work and support themselves in order to raise families and that in order to continue the wonders you describe above this leads to allowing substantial immigration by populations (e.g. Arab and Turk) not committed to Euro values but to other ones which are inconsistent with Euro values and that therefor the foundations for a large clash are being built and that it could get very ugly."
The socialism comment was more of a pun than anything. Though some of it rings true. I am aware of Steyns book. We shared some thoughts at a debate about it at a seminar in uni. Generally it is a very amusing book, that opens some very solid questions, but all in all it falls a bit flat on its face with some of the conclusions. Mainly, that demographics is only a part of, lets call it, interobjective stability. Here I link you the main official statistical database for the Euroland : http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database It is a very nicely layed out database, with preety much every piece of data one can gather. In any further outlandish ventures about Europe, and specific countries within, I heartily recommend checking this site first. Although keep in mind it is raw statistical data, so if you dont have an eye for it, better keep away :):)
I cant, for some reason link specific tables, but hopefully, you will see the primary subtopics that I have opened, which show you some of the conditions from certain countries with questionable demographic potential in the last 15 years, that have been actually, relative to other countries, going up. In the general indicators of investment stability, unenployment rates, administrational transparence (i.e. corruption), low crime rates, favorable gini coefficient ratings, wealth dispersion, and yes Slovenia is among them. To sum up this part of the conversation, I do not beleive the current trend of demographic redux ALONE, will have a generally negative influence. These kinds of trends have been popping up thruought history, and while they can be understood as an indicator, they only ever become dangerous when coupled with a different polarity which can make a volatile combination. I guess in favor of your commentary, this could be the Islamist problem.
To maybe further my position more, the demographic DOES pose a financial problem and with it an immigration one. With the "baby boom" generation starting to retire, there is a problem with the working potential, which is way lower, to fund the pension system, which is, at least in Europe, since Bismarck, "pay as you go" as opposed to the funded version. And this could be remedied to a great extent with actual LOWERING of immigration policies. Put in generic terms, if there are 500 doctors missing in Slovenia, they could easily be brought here from somewhere else and fill the fiscal gap. Of course there is the problem of language and assimilation and all that, but it is enough to ilustrate.
Besides that, what I already wrote somewhere else, I have alot greater fear/respect/scare factor from incredibly gifted scientists, coming from the "Islamic" continuum. Because, If I dare venture into philosophy of religion for a second, their theologic structure of the total otherness of Allah, Islam as a religion, accepts SO MUCH easier, all the findings of modern science (quantum mechanics, bioethics,..) that pose all sorts of incredibly uncomfortable questions for Christianity.
MARC : I have no idea at all about the gypsies, except that I know that Hitler had it in for them almost as much as he did for my people. (I am Jewish). But what does this have to do with the arrival and growing strength of Islam in Europe. Islam is NOT just another religion, it is a theocratic political doctrine as well, and one that has profoundly fascist elements (think of the various death fatwas and various murders (a.k.a. honor killings) for writing books, drawing cartoons, dating infidels, changing to other religions and so forth.
The gypsy comment was but an example, of what the type of rhetoric I was trying to portray in my initial comment, is starting to do in some of the more problematic parts. It is starting to get the "glare and scare" type of undertone, that the German propaganda started to get in the mid 30s.
And NO, not at all the Fascism comment wasnt directed at you, please forgive me. Only now I see, it turned out a little fishy :):) I meant my friends from England and the USA, lets call them my peers.
MARC : "
Part of the Mark Steyn hypothesis is precisely that, due to demographic trends, the Germans ARE going to places you fear they will go. Already they begin their dance with Russia again.
"
Yes this part I remember. Although personally I think it goes way overboard. Mere demographic trends wont trigger this by a long shot. Not to mention that Turks, the primary immigrators there, are one of the best assimilated foreign groups in whole Europe. I cant speak from experience though, maybe some other German friends can ? What is true though, and that stands for everywhere, that immigrators usually inhibit the lower echelons, and with this all the grime that happens down low ( :D :D ) although one of the subgroups from Eurostat can show you, that within 2 generations, they start to get higher, utilizing the relatively favorable vertical mobility options in Germany. I cannot comment the dance with Russia, as I am afraid we will be falling into deep ideological discrepancies here. Ultimately though, I most definitely approve of this dance.
MARC : "Well, putting aside the reference to Ireland because I don't know to what you refer smiley my understanding is that Europe was doing diddly to stop the terrible situation that was developing in the former Yugoslavia and that it was America, a bit under Bush 1 and much more under Clinton, that stepped in to stop a gathering genocide. Of course you know of this history much better than me and I stand ready, willing, and able for you to add to my understanding of these matters."
ahhh, this could end up into pages upon pages, but putting it in the manner of "nobody did anything so we came in and sorted the whole ordeal" is way too naive. Generally the situation was/is 1000 times more complex. Yes the international community did respond, but too late and with totally innapropriate force. Dropping a few bombs and saying mission accomplished wasnt alot different to that legendary Iraqi general who was claiming he is routing US forces, while you could see his soldiers surrendering in the background. The only positive thing, that DID have an effect, and still has, were the peacekeeping forces, which were mostly European.Genocide(s) happened long ago before anyone arrived and even after they arrived. One of the two biggest slaughters of the war, which I will not mention here, as I do not want to offend potential viewers from the countries that got the lesser end, was even funded by the US forces and the CIA. Offering air support, intel, and assets to spawn guerilla groups to enter cleansing of ethnic pockets. Anyway, way OT, for another time perhaps.....lets go on
MARC : "
Again we circle the same point-- is the underlying problem the rhetoric of those concerned by the trends resulting from demographic contraction, or is the underlying problem the demographic contraction caused by an overburdensome socialistic state and multi-culti wimpiness?"
Socialistic state does not exist anymore. Not in its prime context at least. Perhaps in N Korea and Cuba. But those are more for show than anything else. Not underlying problem, but my great concern for the rising violent nationalism is the rhetoric, BECAUSE it starts fueling the demo issue in the manner I spoke of above. Just like the Jewish question and its solution (which was something common throughout European history, not something the NSDAP made up) started fueling the cultural, ethnical and economic difficulties, hyperinflation and all, basically to support a crazy mans crave for power. This is again why I say demographic issues alone arent a sole cause for alarm. Coupled with slight shifts of wellbeing, economic downsides AND viscious primitive yellowpress propaganda and I am starting to hoard weapons. Usually in hard times, people always look for a scapegoat and at the moment, Islam is precisely that. And to bend the will of the people, especially bored, depressed and poor, yellowpress propaganda works wonders.
MARC : "
"Maybe some time in the Muslim neighborhoods of Paris or Rotterdam, where the police fear to go, would change your mind?""
I am unsure of this comment. Surely I cant understand it as an argument against Muslims in general ? I mean ANY time in ANY neighbourhood where police fear to go would change my mind. Hell the most scared I am in Paris is in any given LAfayette mall, seeing men in scarfs with makeup and leather jackets with a handy purse. But yeah, coincidentally, what you bring up here, the occurence of modern day apartheid and slums are one of my main arguments why liberal capitalism in its Western perfected form, with all its freedoms and independences cannot and willnot be able to tackle this. On the one hand you claim any interjection of the state as "socialism" (which is a farcry from it actually) on the other hand you would put all sorts of barriers and laws and general state interference etc. to help save what you hold dear and claim that it works best WITHOUT the state. Hmm.
The quasi left commentary was intended at the general status of the political Left, at least in Europe. It is nonexistent. Thats why I said quasi left, as an inert movement without smell, taste nor color.
MARC : "Illiterate American that I am, the term Odoacer goes right over my head with nary a look back smiley but I find what you say here to encapsulate the essence of something I do not understand at all. How on earth is Europe better off as Eurabia?!?"
Odoacer was a germanic foederati general that succeeded/brought down Romulus Augustus as the Rex Italiae in the 5th century, marking the end of classical era of the Roman Empire. What most people imagine as a decline into barbarism and plunder was actually a very prosperous age, in many ways better and fairer than before. I hope this makes my Eurabia parallel clearer !
with best regards
a very tired Andrew !
-
"Islam as a religion, accepts SO MUCH easier, all the findings of modern science (quantum mechanics, bioethics,..) that pose all sorts of incredibly uncomfortable questions for Christianity."
Exactly where do you get this from? Last time I checked, modern science was something produced by western civilization while islam produces ?
-
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/stoning-in-afghanistan-allahu-akbar-allahu-akbar-allahu-akbar.html
Too advanced for christians to even contemplate!
-
I wonder how the islamization of Europe is looking for Andrew now.
-
http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2015/02/15/the-swedes-and-the-clash-of-civilizations/
-
So, I would like to hear from Europeans how things are working out now for you all?
-
http://www.steynonline.com/7193/the-emperor-moral-narcissism
-
Indeed he did.
-
Curious where our european commenters are now.
-
"Islam as a religion, accepts SO MUCH easier, all the findings of modern science (quantum mechanics, bioethics,..) that pose all sorts of incredibly uncomfortable questions for Christianity."-Andrew Bole
(http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Screen-Shot-2016-01-18-at-4.15.25-PM.png)
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3408033/Muslim-cleric-says-Cologne-sex-attacks-victims-fault-wore-PERFUME.html#reader-comments
EuRAPEia.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/22/locals-fled-pool-after-migrants-masturbated-into-jacuzzi-defecated-into-kids-pool-molested-bathers/
-
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2016/01/28/muslim-migrants-not-as-stupid-and-simple-as-politically-correct-europeans-seem-to-believe/
Conquest.
-
"locals-fled-pool-after-migrants-masturbated-into-jacuzzi-defecated-into-kids-pool-molested-bathers"
And these ungrateful disrespectful morons of the same religion as Rouhani who when visits Italy forces the Italians to remove all statues of nudes, and when visits France refuses to go to meeting where wine is served. It might offend is moral sensibilities. The same people who would send their own children to blown to bits just to kill those they don't agree with.
-
"locals-fled-pool-after-migrants-masturbated-into-jacuzzi-defecated-into-kids-pool-molested-bathers"
And these ungrateful disrespectful morons of the same religion as Rouhani who when visits Italy forces the Italians to remove all statues of nudes, and when visits France refuses to go to meeting where wine is served. It might offend is moral sensibilities. The same people who would send their own children to blown to bits just to kill those they don't agree with.
That about sums it up.
-
http://www.steynonline.com/7495/i-was-only-good-at-enjoying-it#pq=SseTH3
Yes Andrew?
-
http://www.steynonline.com/7495/i-was-only-good-at-enjoying-it#pq=SseTH3
"The terrorists have won. If we're going to move the security perimeter back, why don't sovereign nations move it back to their own national borders by not importing and expanding the high-risk population in which terrorism incubates?"
-
:x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x