"Better Green than Dead"

My plan was to change to other topics, but there has been so much cognitive dissonance from Christian readers in my comments section, that they force me to stay on the topic of Christianity/Islam for a while. I started my blog with criticizing Christan ethics, with which I specifically referred to its inversion of values--weakness as virtue and strength as evil--which is also shared by liberalism. Recently I've brought up the issues of anecdotal conservatism and the monotheistic connection. Obviously the Christians, coming to my site, are eager to force me to have these defects generalized, to hold for Christianity in general. Each of them have their different touch to it, but they are all entangled in anecdotal conservatism and the monotheistic weakness, one way or the other.

In his exchange with Geza1, Desmond Jones writes:

How can whites in ultra-liberal England be any worse off under Sharia than they currently are? England leads Europe in illiteracy, obesity, divorce, drug use, crime and STDs. Wales and the North of England, still overwhelmingly white, have illegitimacy rates over 50%.

A Sharia society is clearly preferable to Desmond Jones over the contemporary West. His motivation lies in miniature issues of anecdotal conservatism. A corollary to Jones' proposition is that something is won if an "ultra-liberal" non-Christian converts to Islam.

- - - - - - - - - -
Desmond Jones continues:

However, as abhorrent as Islam may be, it's still the case that religions come and go, however, extinction is forever. And if mass immigration from non-European lands continues,and low fertility rates persist, competition with various tribes or races, through violence or absorption by inter-marriage ultimately means extinction. Better Islam, than extinction.

Jones' attitude is a surrender. It is parallel to the "Better Red than Dead" meme of the Cold war. In fact Jones' position is an illustration of how Islam is to Christians, what Communism is to liberals. In both cases they see Islam/Communism as bad and objectionable, but not as bad and evil as some aspect of the West; what they perceive as the prevailing order of the West. This prevailing order of the West is so bad in their eyes, that it is not worth fighting for, and they are prepared to surrender before an external enemy. An external enemy, which they do not even see as much as an enemy as a rival. A rival whose rule would be an improvement in their eyes, a step in the right direction to fight evil, as they perceive it.

If European civilization is going to be saved, we need to be prepared to die for it, not surrender because we are perplexed by the presence of drugs and hookers in Amsterdam. The conservative Christians involved in this debate have shown their preference for monotheism and anecdotal conservatism before European civilization. The Christian god of goodness and universalism, thus, does not provide a substance for a defense of European civilization. It's more likely to become a Trojan Horse for letting in Islam. The Christian god is already a foreign god, so the step for letting in the Arabic god is not such a huge step. Especially since the Christians tend to see the Muslims as brothers in Abrahamic monotheism and anecdotal conservatism (issues about homosexuality, abortion, birth control, etc.)

Modern liberalism, as bad as it is, is temporary. It's naively universalist, but does not have the special connection to Islam which Christianity has. What's happening in the present is that we see more and more liberals being mugged by reality and coming out calling for a moratorium on immigration, all while, at the same time, we see more and more Christians coming out saying "better Islam than liberalism".

Desmond Jones, as so many conservative Christians, is panicking about low birth rates. He uses this panic for associating the present West with "extinction". He see the contemporary West as the culture of death (cf. anecdotal conservatism). And he see Islam as life. Therefore his preference of Islam over modern liberalism. But as I have shown in my two articles about Catholicism and birth rates (part 1 and part 2): Low birth rates is a problem, but a problem with a very slow demographic effect, compared to the demographic invasion of Islam, which will dominate us in the mid of this century, even if we would change to birth rates above replacement level already tomorrow.

Furthermore, the Western countries with high number of Christian believers generally have the lowest birth rates, while the secular countries generally are on a much healthier level. But I have learned so far in this debate, that Christians seldom let themselves be confused with facts. Logic seem to be alien to them too, as we see in the cognitive dissonance of Desmond Jones and Jim Kalb when they say that modern liberalism with its mass immigration is so bad, that it is better we are invaded by Islam. They really need to make up their minds on whether they want to be invaded by aliens or not. This position of Desmond Jones and Jim Kalb is an intellectual and mental collapse.

Ali Sina on Islam

Ali Sina is an ex-Muslim and Islam critic from Iran. He is founder of the website Faith Freedom International, and authour of Understanding Muhammad: The Psychobiography of Allah’s Prophet.

Below follows Ali Sina's summary of the essence of Islam, written a few years ago. It provides a very concise overview of the most important aspects of Islam, and ample reasons for rejecting it.

By Ali Sina:

"Islam is a religion of peace". This is what our politically correct politicians keep telling us. But what is politically correct is not necessarily correct. The truth is that Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of hate, of terror and of war.

A thorough study of the Quran and Hadith reveal an Islam that is not being presented honestly by the Muslim propagandists and is not known to the majority of Muslims. Islam as it is taught in the Quran (Koran) and lived by Muhammad, as is reported in the Hadith (Biography and sayings of the Prophet) is a religion of intolerance, inequality, violence, discrimination, superstition, fanaticism, and blind faith. Islam advocates killing the non-Muslims, abuses the human rights of minorities and women. Islam expanded by Jihad (holy war) and forced its way by killing the non-believers and the dissidents. Apostasy in Islam is the biggest crime, punishable by death. Muhammad was a fundamentalist himself therefore fundamentalism cannot be separated from true Islam. Islam, which means submission, demands from its followers to submit their wills and thoughts to Muhammad and his imaginary Allah, a deity that despises reason, democracy, freedom of thought and freedom of expression.

I reject Islam a) because of Muhammad’s lack of moral and ethical fortitude and b) because of the absurdities in Quran.

a) Muhammad lived a less than holy life. His lust for sex, his affairs with his maids and slave girls, his pedophilic relationship with Aisha a 9-year-old child at the age of 53, his killing sprees, his massacre and the genocide of the Jews, his slave making and trading, his assassination of his opponents, his raids and lootings of the merchant caravans, his burning of the palm plantations, his destroying the water wells, his cursing and invoking evil on his enemies, his revenge on his captured prisoners of war and his hallucinations about having sex with his wives when he actually did not, disqualify him as a sane person let alone a messenger of God

b) An unbiased study of Quran shows that far from being a “miracle” that book is a hoax. Once Quran is scrutinized with rational thinking, almost every sentence proves to be false. Quran is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies. Could possibly the author of this Universe be as ignorant as it appears to be in Quran?

- - - - - - - - - -

Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (Q; 2:191), murder them and treat them harshly (Q; 9:123), slay them (Q; 9:5), fight with them, (Q; 8:65 ). It tells its followes to humiliate the Christians and the Jews and impose on them a penalty tax (Q; 9:29). It takes away the freedom of belief from all humanity and tells clearly that no other religion except Islam is acceptable (Q;3:85) and relegates those who disbelieve in it to hell (Q;5:10), calls them najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (Q;9:28) and orders the Muslims to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (Q;2:193). Quran states that the non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water (Q;14:17). It asks the Muslims to slay or crucify or cut the hands and the feet of the unbelievers, and expel them from the land with disgrace and stresses that “they shall have a great punishment in world hereafter” (Q;5:34). It says that for the disbelievers "garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods” (Q;22:19). Quran prohibits Muslims to befriend their own brothers and fathers if they are non-believers (Q;9:23), (Q;3:28). It asks the Muslims to “strive against the unbelievers with great endeavor (Q;25:52) and be stern with them because they belong to hell (Q;66:9). The holy Prophet demanded his followers to “strike off the heads of the disbelievers”; then after making a “wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives” for ransom (Q;47:4).

As for the women the book of Allah says that they are inferior to men and if found disobedient their husbands have the right to scourge them (Q;4:34). But their punishment for disobeying their husbands does not end there, because after they die they will go to hell (Q;66:10). Quran emphasizes the superiority of men by confirming that men have an advantage over the women (Q;2:228). It not only denies the women's equal right to their inheritance (Q;4:11-12), it also regards them as imbeciles and decrees that their witnessed is not admissible in the court of law unless it is accompanied with the witness of a man (Q;2:282). This means that a woman who is raped cannot accuse her rapist unless she can produce a male witness. Muhammad allowed the Muslims to marry up to four wives (although he himself had a score of them) and gave them license to enjoy their "right-hand possessions" (women captured in wars) as many as they can capture or afford to buy (Q;4:3), even if she's married before being captured,(Q;4:24).

The man who called himself the holy Prophet and a "mercy of God for all beings" did just that. Javiryah, Rayhanah and Safiyah were beautiful young girls captured when he raided the tribes of Banu a1-Mustaliq , Qurayza and Nadir. The prophet slaughtered their husbands, fathers and loved ones and slept with them in the same day he captured them.

Auster shuns the idea of Islam as a cult

Lawrence Auster is making a lot of noise over at his site. He decided to change the discourse and make this whole thing personal. This is not good for the discussion. As the first rule of war propaganda is: if you want to motivate an attack on someone, you need to depict it as if the other party had attacked you first. So Auster creates an army of strawmen, portray himself as a victim, and then uses this as a pretext for changing from intellectual discourse to an emotional quarrel. However, I'm not interested in playing these games. Instead, the intellectual exploration must go on.

The second post by Auster adds to the discussion, so I will focus on that. All while ignoring the initial, ridiculous, claim that I'm being openly hostile to him. Auster just needs to calm down and stay within the frames of intellectual discourse.

Another minor comment before going to the main issue: Auster persists in saying that I describe Islam as some sort of sexual system; this time just with a new term: "a self-complete sexual organization of life". While the post he refers to puts the focus on the sexual side of Islam, it does in no way reduce Islam to merely a sexual system of any kind. I have repeatedly made that clear, but so far Auster has chosen to ignore it.

In his post, Auster writes two things that are enlightening:

1. [CS's] portrait was in such lurid colors that Islam ceased to be a religion at all and became nothing but a horrible sex and power cult.
2. My position is that Islam is indeed a religion devoted to a transcendent God...

- - - - - - - - - -
As Popper stated, people do not just observe the facts of the world as they are. We see all things through a theory, which organizes the impressions in our mind. The theory provides assumptions and a perspective, that decides which facts that are of importance, and which are not; and it also serves as a filter. This is how the human mind is organized, and these theories are tenacious and do not change easily.

Auster's assumption about Islam is that it is a religion, as opposed to a horrible cult. The idea is internalized in Auster in such a way, that Islam must not be a horrible cult. Facts and descriptions suggesting that Islam is indeed a horrible cult do not fit his theory, and are discarded merely on this basis.

The second statement of Auster explains what he means by a religion here: that its adherents are "devoted to a transcendent God". For me--knowing all that I know, after years of study--it is easy to see that Islam is nothing but a horrible cult. It is clear to me that it is all made up by Muhammad. But Auster's idea that Muslims are "devoted to a transcendent God" suggests that to him there is more to Islam, than a cult made up by Muhammad.

Auster sees the existence of a transcendent God as an objective truth. In this world view it is of course possible for anyone, one way or the other, to come in contact with this transcendent God. It's also a world in which people will sense the presence of the transcendent God and be in search of him; even if they do not find him, or the true path to him. Auster's proposition "that Islam is indeed a religion devoted to a transcendent God" thus seems to suggest that Muslims, in spite of all their miscomprehensions, are in one way or the other in contact with this transcendent God or at least genuinely in search for him. Something that should render Islam some amount of elementary respect, according to Auster. This perspective does not allow for seeing Islam as the cult it is, instead Islam is provided with a respectable position as one of the world religions.

We see again the problem of believing in Christianity, in how it calls for elementary respect for other religions as religions, and especially monotheistic Abrahmic religions (read: Islam). It is not clear, at this point, if Auster likewise consider polytheistic Hindus being "devoted to a transcendent God"; or Buddhists or Confucisianists? And what about the Children of God?

Anyway, unlike the majority of Christians, Auster handles the big picture eminently. He very clearly sees Islam as the threat to the West that it truly is. And for any practical purpose, in a foreseeable future, Auster has the right program for defending the West against Islam, when he calls for Separationism. But nevertheless it is always important to see things as they really are. Auster fears that if Islam is seen as he cult that it truly is, that, as a consequence, it must lead to a position urging the physical destruction of Islam (a thought that makes him bring up associations to neocon web commenters calling for killing all Muslims). Therefore he holds on to the position that there must be some basic value in Islam, and that it should be shown some basic respect. My position here, is that we should first look with clear eyes at what Islam really is, without mixing it up with the issue of how it should then be dealt with--which at this stage will obviously only hamper the view.

I think that our different characterizations of Islam here, that have crystallized by now, explains for some of the differences in perspective me and Auster have had on different issues before. I will have reason to come back to this.

I'm impressed by the ideas of Auster, and the work he has achieved is of utmost importance, and has been an important inspiration to me. But there is still the need to go deeper into the issues than Auster chooses to do, both regarding the defects of Islam and the flaws of the West.

More questions for Lawrence Auster

After reading my article Islam—perverted parasitical psychopathy, you wrote to me:

This seems awfully extreme, cartoonish, taking elements of Islam and then turning up the volume to the maximum. If Islam were as pathological as you say, how could it have functioned and supplied the order of societies for all these centuries?

Yes, it's awfully extreme and cartoonish. This is Islam. This is how it really is. This is the proper way to describe it. Don't shoot the messenger!

I was surprised to get this answer from you. You had appeared to me as a person who knows Islam really well. But recently it has struck me that you have mainly looked at Islam from the outside, as an external enemy, and not taken enough interest in looking at Islam from the inside, about what makes it tick, and how it is to live in a Muslim society. My view of Islam is shaped by years of dialog with ex-Muslim telling about life in Muslim societies. Their stories are very strong, and it is quite possible that you would react to them in the same way, that it "seems awfully extreme, cartoonish, taking elements of Islam and then turning up the volume to the maximum". But this is the life they live. And by hearing their stories while in parallel reading the Koran and the Hadiths, where all of this is meticulously described and regulated, the connection between the stories and the sources--and the full picture--becomes very clear.

The part about "taking elements of Islam and then turning up the volume to the maximum" sounds like something Dinesh D'Souza would say to Robert Spencer. Let's take a key section of my article, and you tell me what is wrong with it, Lawrence:

- - - - - - - - - -

While the Muslim society is deprived of any hopes for natural human inclinations regarding sex and sensualism, Islamic warfare is full of promises and guarantees for Muslim men. Driven by pent-up sexual lust and fear of hell, the Muslim warriors fight till they die, or till they win. If they die, they are guaranteed a place in Islamic heaven, where 72 voluptuous virgins are waiting for them in an eternity of lustful sex. And there is wine too. There are also "pearly boys" for those who are such inclined (Muhammad thought of everything). If they win, they are free to take as many "right hand possessions" as they like. "Right hand possessions" is Islamic lingo for female sex slaves (conquered by the sword). Apart from the four wives, a Muslim may have as many female sex slaves as he wants.

What specific things I bring up in this paragraph do you consider cherry-picking and/or "turning up the volume to the maximum"? What part of it is not an accurate and detached description of Islam?


And regarding your question:

If Islam were as pathological as you say, how could it have functioned and supplied the order of societies for all these centuries?

Your question is a surprising one since it comes as a reaction to an article that makes the effort to describe key elements of what makes Islam function well. E.g. expansion and parasitism are things that make Islam thrive. Your confusion to take my description as ground for implying that this couldn't function, suggests to me that, quite as Jim Kalb, you apply your moral standards of good and bad to the issue of whether something "works". You seem to think that if it's bad--bad to the core--it cannot work. I consider this a very misguided way of thinking. A system can work very well, even if it is bad into its essence--according to your or my moral standards. Islam definitely doesn't trigger the sides of human nature that we would like to see encouraged. But it definitely works.

Furthermore, I do not describe Islam as pathological. As long as there is opportunity for expansion and parasitism it is very vital. And its aggressiveness keeps enemies away in the fallow periods. Islam is perverted, parasitical and psychopathic. But it's not pathological. I describe Muhammad's invention as the closest thing we've seen to a perpetuum mobile. This the opposite of saying that it is pathological.

Answer to Auster's comment

Lawrence Auster has weighed in by commenting in my blog, and also posted this comment at his site under the title Kalb vs. Conservative Swede on Islam, with Auster taking a middle position.

As suggested by his title, Auster's idea here is to take a middle position (once again with his now almost ubiquitous "on one hand"/"on the other hand" act). As I have already described: since Auster presents himself as a traditionalist conservative, and this label is connected to Jim Kalb (who was also the founder of VFR), Auster is in need--for the show--not to repudiate the position of Jim Kalb, but to try to wiggle some balance into the discourse; thusly aiming at saving enough of Jim Kalb in order to save the concept of traditionalist conservatism.

But considering that Jim Kalb's position is a "fifth columnist waiting to happen", this is not an easy task. The only way to accomplish it is to grossly mischaracterize my position. Which Auster proceeded to do. Most notably when he writes:

On one hand, pace Conservative Swede, Muslims are not monsters, but people doing what their god has told them to do; therefore we cannot simply kill them all, as more than a few commenters in the neocon blogs have advocated from time to time.

Leaving the details of the rhetoric mastery aside for a second: In order to find a middle weight between my position and the ignorant and treasonous stance of Jim Kalb, my position has to be captured by Auster as a position of wanting to kill all the Muslims. Never mind that this is not at all my position. Nice work, Auster.

- - - - - - - - - -
Now Lawrence will of course claim that he didn't explicitly say that my position is that all Muslims should be killed, that he merely associated me with neocon web commenters who said things of the kind (and this is what I attribute to the account of rhetoric mastery, so we can leave it aside right here). Apart from being impudent in itself, it must take quite a lot of stomach for Auster to first complain about my comparison between Powerline and VFR, and then come up with this thing himself.

Even so, I expect Auster to try to fall back on his rhetoric figure, claiming that he has been all fair an not at all disingenuous. But please note that regarding my position of how to deal with Islam (a position that Auster is familiar with), nothing else is written except for this lumping me together with the idea of killing all Muslims (which Auster knows is disingenuous).

Apparently the idea of "no friends to the right of me" is not alien to Auster. He takes a strong position on Islam. But when someone takes a stronger position than him, he does not hesitate to mischaracterize it as a "killing all Muslims" opinion. All while he's apologetic to the objectionable opinion of Jim Kalb. So typical of the society we live in.

Regarding the other idea that Auster wants to glue upon me, that Muslims are monsters: I would say Islam is monstrous, and that Muhammad was a monster. But I know Islam too well to see the Muslims themselves as monsters. The Muslims are the first victims of the horrors of Islam, they are prisoners in this mental prison. And most Muslims have not read the Koran, most of them can't because they do not understand Arabic, and the Koran is never translated in Muslim countries. The average Muslim makes up his own stories of what Islam is about, it becomes oral traditions. And since humanity springs inside every human being, these stories are much more benign than real Islam. Muslims are only monsters to the degree that they follow the commands of the Koran and the example of Muhammad. But most Muslims are unaware of this, and have only tacit knowledge. Their main purpose is in being part of the head count. Islam builds its strength by numbers, both mentally and practically. The tacit knowledge of these Muslims is important for the social cohesion. They all know deep inside e.g. about the Islamic death penalty for apostasy. And if they would forget, there are many triggers for reminding them.

We will find that the degree to which the Muslims in general follow the command of the Koran will depend on the current strength of Islamic imperialism, and whether they are in the center or in the periphery of the empire. Mid 20th century was a good period for these poor prisoners of Islam. Islamic imperialism was at its low and they could live their lives more as they wished. But now when Islam is in the middle of a surge, the true ideas of Islam are spread widely and deeply across the Islamic world. I have been in contact with Muslims in the periphery who told me they fear how the Saudi and Pakistani mullah would soon come to their land, which would mean the end of the good life. They know it.

Also Auster claims that I describe Islam as a "system of sexual perversion". This is a false description. But what should I expect at this point? How could Islam be a system of sexual perversion? How could a system of sexual perversion expand and subdue other cultures for 1400 years? With idea that Auster introduces here of reducing Islam to a "system of sexual perversion", Islam gets reduced into a nothing. Auster appears to be blind to the genius of Muhammad. Islam is a very well-tailored set of formulas. The different parts fit well together into a giant machine that is still running and expanding. As I wrote:

Muhammad understood that sex and fear are the keys to total mind control of a human society. He combines them skillfully. Below follows a description of one of the many formulas carefully tailored, using these elements, by the skillful psychopathic mind of Muhammad. But there are many more.

Then I continued by describing one of these formulas, where sex indeed plays a role. Auster then, in spite of what I clearly stated, take this as a complete description of Islam, and then in his mind reduce the whole thing to a "system of sexual perversion". Something that cannot be said even of the specific formula I described. The element of sex is often found in Islam, as a way to control the Muslims, but it needs to be combined with the elements of fear, religion and brotherhood. Take away some element and the formulas won't work anymore.

Most of the time when I describe Islam as perverted I'm not referring to sexual perversion. Islam is perverse in all its aspects. Take for example the punishment of stoning to death. Apart from being an atrocious penalty as such, let's look at what the Sharia law specifies about it. First we have the thing about the size of the stones (which I think most people already know about): not too big so they would kill too soon, and not too small. They should have the perfect size for causing maximal pain and damage, to make the process as tortuous as possible. The condemned is wrapped in a sheet and partially buried; male convicts are buried from the waist down, women up to the neck. It is part of the Sharia law that if the convict manages to struggle free and escape, he may go away as a free man and continue his life. This is why women are buried up to the neck. I heard a story from Iran of a case of a woman, who in spite of the virtually impossible odds had managed to struggle herself free, from the position of being buried up to the neck. But next thing a man came out from the crowd sticking a knife into her back, all while the crowd was cheering.

To call this as mysogynic doesn't quite describe it. This is perversely misogynic. In fact, every aspect of Islam is perverse as described above. I challenge both Auster and Kalb to find an aspect of Islam that is not perverse (that is not some peripheral aspect). Everything is perverse: criminal law, civil law, man-woman relations, warfare, heaven, etc.

I've been forced, by his way of acting, to criticize Auster strongly here. But I should add that in spite of Auster's serious flaws at display here, he's still at the overall level a person that encourages debate, and wants to play it fair, and is open to differing opinions. This has not changed. But I think Lawrence has been a bit shocked and shaken by some of the things I have said. So this whole thing might take some time.

Geza1 on Kalb and Islam

A new reader, Geza1, made an excellent comment in the thread Jim Kalb and Islamic perversion. I post it here with some comments of mine interspersed, bracketed and bolded:

Islam has been in decline since 1683 and the only thing keeping it afloat has been Western colonialism in the past and globalism in the present. Islam's population explosion has been quite recent (post-WWII). The fact that Islam has survived 1400 years does not impress nor does it imply that it will survive another 1400. There have been many civilizations that have survived that long but since they are no longer with us waving their scimitars in our face, we tend not to become awestruck by their longevity. If longevity impressed me, I would look towards the Hindic and Sinic civilizations which have lasted much longer than Islam and sustained a consistently large population for most of their history. [This is a very good point. So it's not the longevity that impresses Kalb and makes him sympathetic towards Islam. First of all, without the scimitar waving in our faces, Islam wouldn't get this sort of respectful attention from Westerners. And regarding Kalb, of course we have the usual Abrahamic thing, where Muslims are seen as a kind of brothers in monotheism, something that the Hindus and the Chinese are excluded from. If Kalb had wanted to make a general point out of cultural strength and longevity of other cultures compared to the contemporary West, he should have brought up the Hindic and Sinic civilizations . But it is Islam that Kalb has a preference for. What made him prefer Islam before the Hindic and Sinic civilizations? The way he singles out Islam suggests that the point is about something else than longevity--what then?]

If dar-al-Islam had been left to its own devices it would have died a slow death leaving almost nothing behind. Much like the Bedouin bandit, Islam requires easy booty (whether that booty comes in form of foreign aid, petrodollars, or weak infidels doesn't matter) to sustain itself. Since Islam has not been left alone for most of its history, it has spread the world over among the weakest people on earth (Third Worlders). [This is the parasitical nature of Islam that I am talking about. Islam can only thrive when waging war against non-Muslims, conquering them, and then sucking the blood out of their culture, and in the end leaving nothing behind. Mankind has never seen an imperialism so utterly devastating as Islam. Today Islam is thriving thanks to the mindless Christian charity attitude of the West, providing them with the money and the medicine for a population explosion, and thusly for Jihad.]

As bad as liberalism gets (and it is quite bad right now), I would still rather live in ultra-liberal Sweden 2060 than any Muslim country for the simple reason that I would be ruled by white people instead of some Arab or Pakistani sultan. Yes, I would lose most of my identity and history as a European under the new liberal order, but I'd rather have an anemic European identity and descendants with white skin instead of being forced to worship a magical meteorite with my butt up in the air five times a day and have descendants who'd look like they belong more in National Geographic rather than Stockholm.

Yes, liberalism is built on lies and even if Islam has a concept of the transcendent why should I care if it has more truth than liberalism? I might as well convert to Scientology then because even THAT has more truth than liberalism. There is no truth behind liberalism and something that even has a inkling of truth in comparison can still be bullshit.

Most of us on this blog are in agreement that liberalism is only temporary, Islam very may well be as well. But Islam will take longer to die out and it will dilute our gene pool in the process. Any "truth" Islam offers is not worth the genetic carnage it will unload on the white West.

Geza1 brings up many good points which I like to add to. Modern liberalism is a veneer painted on top of European identity. Even if we imagine a future anemic European identity, it would still be European. And modern liberalism is temporary. It's been around for merely some 60 years. It doesn't goes as deep and is bound to disappear or transform during this century. It's in the nature of European civilization to go through changes. Islam on the other hand has virtually been a constant for 1400 years, and it goes to the core of Muslim societies. So the position of describing "contemporary advanced liberalism" as more evil than Islam, essentially just boils down to just another version of the far too common Western self-hate. Typical of people who have their prime loyalty to something else than European civilization, European culture and European ethnicity. Traditionalist conservatism is an ideology that has exposed itself as being too weak on this point.

The Sinic civilization is interesting here, from more than one point of view. Apart from its historic longevity, it is also today the civilization that is most successfully defending itself against Islam, and effectively cracking down on Islam within their lands. But last century China went through several decades of Maoism, including the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. A period of truly horrid evil. But temporary. And this is how we can compare it with modern liberalism, which is also temporary. I'm sure there were Chinese Jim Kalbs, at the time, that were saying that China would be better of under Islam. But China came out of the Cultural Revolution and is strong today. Likewise will the West get out of modern liberalism. But once you have been Islamized there's no way out of it. This is yet another serious flaw in Kalb's thinking, to compare something temporary with something permanent. There's no way out of Islam, but there are many ways out of liberalism (quite as there was a way out of the Cultural Revolution for China). This alone makes any kind of "advanced liberalism" eminently more preferable than Islam.

Geza1 writes: "I would still rather live in ultra-liberal Sweden 2060 than any Muslim country". The way things are going Sweden will be a Muslim country by 2060. And according to Jim Kalb this is preferable to a scenario where immigration is stopped but modern liberalism is kept. And this is not hypothetical, because this is what already happened in Denmark. If any Western country is a secular modern liberal country, Denmark is. Denmark (maybe challenged by Holland) has always been considered the most liberal country of the West, and this has not changed. What Denmark has done is to provide for secular modern liberalism to sustain. Wait a few decades and the situation will have crystallized and Jim Kalb will be clear in his preference of Islamic Sweden before liberal Denmark.

The traditionalist conservatism of Jim Kalb is not a general tool for seeing the big picture and providing substance for a defense of European civilization. It is a specific tool for criticizing liberalism. But because of this narrow view it's bound to crumple. As I have pointed out, the worst aspect of contemporary modern liberalism is how it invites Islam into our countries, and how this will make them become Islamized during this century, if the process is not stopped. But according to the trad conservatism of Jim Kalb, liberalism cannot be criticized for this, since it is better, according to Kalb, if liberalism leads to Islam than if liberalism is able to sustain itself. Since Islam "has more of a place for natural human inclinations", retains more complex truths, and has "a theoretical place for Christian communities". And thereby Kalb's trad conservatism has collapsed completely. It is then not even useful as the specific tool it was designed to be, for criticizing liberalism. Because it doesn't see the big picture, and is overly concerned with the evils of liberalism, it misses the biggest problem in modern liberalism altogether: that it is currently leading to Islamization. This is what Lawrence Auster refers to as "consciousness that modern liberalism is so evil that anything, including Islam, would be better than it". I call it the collapse of traditionalist conservatism.

Lawrence Auster, Kalb and Islam

There has been quite a lot of e-mail exchange between me and Lawrence Auster about the Kalb/Islam issue.

The first reaction of Lawrence Auster, when I sent him the Jim Kalb quote, was to thank me for it (he was unaware of this position by Kalb), and then he posted it and replied.

My reaction to this was to say:

I can read at VFR how Jim Kalb's derangement is treated with respect, together with the willingness to explain for his position. All reminiscent of how the poor guys at Powerline continue to treat George W. Bush with respect. And VFR is never a site holding its fire otherwise. Jim Kalb is the Dinesh D'Souza of traditional conservatism, and any movement having such a person among its ranks is in deep trouble.

To this Auster answered:

[H]ave you lost your mind? Didn't you see the follow-up comments explaining Kalb's context? Didn't you see my disagreement with Jim Kalb?

My answer:

This is exactly what I looked at, and then I described it.

You respectfully disagreed, and even "explained" his context. What else could you do?

But herein lies the problem that I see. And we all have our limits, even you.

If Jim Kalb belongs to traditionalist conservatism, there is no political substance to it.

Auster continues:

And what is this business that, because Kalb takes a bad position, that means that that bad position defines trad conservatism, which means that Auster's good positions have nothing to do with trad conservatism? Why is it that Kalb's positions define trad conservatism, and Auster's don't?

I reply:

So let's say that Auster's position define trad conservatism, who else is in trad conservatism? Is it a movement, or just another name of Auster's position?

And if it is a movement, it seems to be a movement that is bound in its respect for Kalb's position. Which surely distracts the movement and hampers it.

But the important thing is that this whole affair made me question what is at the core of trad conservatism.

Regarding my Powerline comparison Auster wrote:

My disagreements with [Kalb], while stated politely, were clear and strong and repeated. I don't see how you can compare that to Powerline's groupie-hood toward GWB.

I really feel you have mistaken politeness for something else and you ought to correct this.

While the comparison between VFR (comments by Auster and Bruce B) and Powerline holds true in one dimension, it differs in many others; many of which are to the disadvantage of Powerline. Kalb is of course not the sort of idol as Bush, and VFR has not expressed groupie-hood toward Kalb. But the similarity is a very important one. Whenever a person presents himself as belonging to a certain group or movement, there will always be things that he has to deny or block out of his mind, in order to being able to sustain this position. It is true of people presenting themselves as pro-Bush neocons, who have to block out and deny the many times Bush screwed his base, and how he's pushing for national suicide of America by mass amnesty. It's true of people presenting themselves as Catholics, who have to block out and deny the Vatican II's embracement of Islam, by saying Muslims adore the same one god, and how they are included in the plan of salvation simply by remaining Muslims. It's true of people presenting themselves as anti-racist non-bigots, who have to block out the idea of halting immigration, among other things.

Lawrence Auster presents himself as a traditionalist conservative. This sets limits to how Auster can behave if he wants to continue presenting himself as a trad conservative. For example, he cannot attack Jim Kalb as fiercely as he attacks e.g. Mark Steyn, even if Jim Kalb deserves it just as much. If he did that it would undermine the possibility for Auster present himself as trad conservative. Auster has to make himself blind to the utter seriousness of Kalb's position, and how it torpedoes the substance of trad conservatism (if there is going to be any substance of value in it).

Kalb's position is not simply the one of ignorance about Islam. He takes it a step further and claims that Islam is superior to, and preferable to, contemporary modern liberalism. Modern liberalism which, with all its serious flaws, is one of many incarnations of European civilization. It has turned into a kind of soft totalitarianism which is bringing us down, but as any European incarnation it is mixed with the many traditional and typical features of European civilization; it still is European civilization. Without this consciousness there is no substance to a defense of European civilization. Trad conservatism does not have this consciousness. Trad conservatism is too obsessed with the idea of modern liberalism being evil, to being able to see the full picture.

A main weakness of Western history has been how soon Westerners label each other as heretics and evil enemies, while lacking the focus on Islam as an enemy, even inviting Muslims as allies. There are numerous examples, e.g. how during the crusades the Catholics invaded and weakened Byzantium, and thereby helped paving the way for the subsequent Islamic conquest of Constantinople. This sort of treason against European civilization continues today. Much of it is coming from the conservative side, e.g. from Dinesh D'Souza, Le Pen, Mark Steyn and Jim Kalb. Based on an excessive despise of liberalism (or Jews), and therefore the willingness to reach out a hand to Islam, one way or the other.

In the case of Jim Kalb, monotheism trumps European civilization. Already there Kalb's substance for a defense of European civilization is gone. This is a sort of treason that is far too common among believing Christians.

The single worst aspect of modern liberalism is how it invites Islam into our lands. If modern liberalism is going to be criticized, this has to be at the top of the list. Jim Kalb's position that Islam is preferable to the contemporary West does not help here. His weakness vis-a-vis Islam puts him in the same category as the liberals themselves. It's a position that is all part of the problem, and has to be strongly opposed.

Where does Lawrence Auster end up in all this? Let's go back to what he posted at VFR. His first reaction to Kalb's position on Islam. Auster who otherwise has a good position regarding Islam and the West, is here hampered by his affiliation to trad conservatism, and this forces him into acrobatic straddling: Jim Kalb's position has to be treated respectfully, while Auster still want to make his points about Islam. He ends up in a lot of "on one hand"/"on the other hand", trying take a balanced position and to reconcile the irreconcilable. He writes:

On one hand, I can see this statement as coming from a consciousness that modern liberalism is so evil that anything, including Islam, would be better than it. Islam is not evil exactly; Islam is like a predator that you know will kill you and you have to protect yourself from it, but you don't hate it because it's simply its nature to be a predator, whereas modern liberalism is truly evil.

The "consciousness that modern liberalism is so evil that anything, including Islam, would be better than it". This is where you lost me, Auster. This sentence alone shows what's wrong with trad conservatism. And the talk about Islam not being exactly evil, and more like a predator. Auster only consider Islam from the point of view as an external threat. He cannot allow himself the internal perspective: how it is, from the inside, to live in a Islamic society. He cannot allow himself such a full and fair comparison between modern liberalism and Islam, because that would open a cleft between him and Jim Kalb, and that would shake the whole fundament for Auster in presenting himself as a trad conservative.

Instead of attacking Jim Kalb--as he would if it were Mark Steyn or Robert Spencer--Auster is going out of his way in explaining for the "context" of Kalb's remark, and even describing Kalb's position as expressing "consciousness" (as part of his confused "on one hand"/"on the other hand" act.)

Lawrence Auster has a good position on Islam. But he needs to drop his affiliation with Jim Kalb. This is hampering him and weakens him. It puts him in a sort of "usual suspect" position, where, among all the sense that he makes, some things cannot be clearly said because of his group affiliation.

Midsummer

Tomorrow, Friday, is the day for the most important festivity in Sweden: the pagan celebration of Midsummer. When we celebrate the summer solstice, dancing around a fertility symbol, eating traditional food, drinking akvavit. The sun sets at 22.30 and goes up again at 3.00, when the party normally goes on (and it never really gets completely dark, the sun is just under the horizon). Being a cold and dark country in the most northern corner of the world, this is a highly symbolic day.

I'll soon be back posting again.

[Nothing further.]

Jim Kalb and Islamic perversion

Jim Kalb had written "I consider Islam better than contemporary advanced liberalism". The problem with such statements, apart from being clueless, is that people like Kalb, under certain circumstances, will come out and see Islam as an ally. We have seen this happening recently with e.g. Le Pen and Dinesh D'Souza.

In the comment section of his article, Jim Kalb continued by saying:

On Islam and advanced liberalism, it seems to me you can look at both as heresies that strip down Christianity in the interests of making it simple, easily comprehensible, and directly applicable by force to all the affairs of this world. It seems to me though that Islam retains more truths, and more complex truths, than liberalism does. That's why it's been able to sustain the life of millions and millions of people for more than a thousand years. Liberalism, I think, is too much opposed to life to match that.

In both settings Christians are able to practice their faith although they're subject to disabilities. Right now I'd rather be a Christian in Sweden than in Iran. I'm not sure how much that can be relied on. Islam has at least a theoretical place for Christian communities, but you can't say the same for liberalism.

VFR reader Bruce B thought that this was extenuating and clarifying by Jim Kalb. And while it is indeed clarifying, it makes the whole thing worse.

First of all, to declare Islam a Christian heresy is being far too inclusive to Islam. Islam is as anti-matter is to matter compared to any expression of European civilization.

"It seems to me though that Islam retains more truths, and more complex truths, than liberalism does." If by "more complex truths" Kalb means a religion based on sexual perversion, dehumanization of its followers, psychopathic blood-thirsty behavior, etc. (see my post below), he's hit the jackpot.

"Islam has at least a theoretical place for Christian communities, but you can't say the same for liberalism." This is a comment worthy of Bernard Lewis. I suggest that Jim Kalb takes a look at the destiny of the Christian Communities in Northern Africa and the Middle East, such as the Copts of Egypt, the Assyrian Christians, the Armenians, etc. Centuries of Islamic parasitism here have reduced the Christian communities of these formerly Christan lands into virtually nothing, while undergoing the most horrid forms of suffering.

A more recent example, where Jim Kalb needs to take a look a the place of the Christian community in a Muslim land, is Lebanon. Brigitte Gabriel has written about Islam's Jihad against Lebanese Christians at Frontpage:

They started massacring the Christians, city after city. Horrific events the western media seldom reported. One of the most ghastly acts was the massacre in the of Damour where thousands of Christians were slaughtered like sheep. The Muslims would enter a bomb shelter, see a mother and a father hiding with a little baby. They would tie one leg of the baby to the mother and one leg to the father and pulled the parents apart splitting the child in half. A close friend of mine was mentally disturbed because they made her slaughter her own son in a chair. They tied her to a chair, tied a knife to her hand and holding her hand forcing her to cut her own son's throat. They would urinate and defecate on the altars of churches using the pages of the bible as toilet paper. They did so many things I don't need to go into any more detail. You get the picture.

It is this religion of Jihad that Jim Kalb thinks provides a better place for Christians than in contemporary advanced liberalism.

Islam—perverted parasitical psychopathy

[For those of you who haven't studied the Koran and the Hadiths, you are not prepared for this article. Remedy this by first reading this introduction by Ali Sina.]

I see how the other people involved in this discussion, one way or the other, are all groping for a proper description of Islam. But they all fail. This holds true both of those whose intuitive grasp of Islam is of the right kind, as well as for those who are utterly clueless. And without the proper terminology, their reasoning is bound to lead them all wrong.

Islam has been described e.g. as "nihilistic" and "anti-mind", but in the next sentence modern liberalism is described using the same words (may I add to this list of "similarities" that both Islam and liberalism are words ending with the letter "M"?). A courageous attempt to capture the essence of Islam is to describe it as a "supremacist warrior ideology of plunder and submission". But even that is not even close. This is a label that can arguably be put on numerous civilizations in our history, none of which are even close to being as bottomlessly horrid as Islam, some of which were not all that bad. The most popular word used to describe Islam seems to be "evil". But since it seems to be equally popular to describe modern liberalism, or some other Western ideology, as "evil" in the next sentence, this makes the meaning of the word evil collapse, as if matter meets anti-matter, and the word completely loses its meaning for this purpose.

What is Islam? Islam is all about Muhammad. Muhammad is like the evil scientist who understood well the deepest secrets and inner functions of the human nature, and used this knowledge to dehumanize his followers, and create the most perverted, parasitical and destructive movement, maximally possible. Muhammad was a sexually perverted psychopath, but a psychopath with an unparalleled intuitive intelligence, which he used to create Islam. Islam which is a set of social formulas, tailored with such skill, to create an ever growing giant movement of psychopathy, spreading its parasitical perversion even 1400 years after the death of its creator. There is no single historical person having had such influence, over so many people, so long time after his death, as Muhammad. The dream of many scientists in the history of mankind has been to invent a perpetuum mobile. Muhammad has succeeded best so far. The satanic "machine" he invented, Islam, is still untiringly running, 1400 years later, parasitically destroying everything that comes in its way.

Muhammad understood that sex and fear are the keys to total mind control of a human society. He combines them skillfully. Below follows a description of one of the many formulas carefully tailored, using these elements, by the skillful psychopathic mind of Muhammad. But there are many more. Everything is perverted in Islam, down to the smallest aspects of every-day life. All meticulously regulated in the Hadiths.

While the Muslim society is deprived of any hopes for natural human inclinations regarding sex and sensualism, Islamic warfare is full of promises and guarantees for Muslim men. Driven by pent-up sexual lust and fear of hell, the Muslim warriors fight till they die, or till they win. If they die, they are guaranteed a place in Islamic heaven, where 72 voluptuous virgins are waiting for them in an eternity of lustful sex. And there is wine too. There are also "pearly boys" for those who are such inclined (Muhammad thought of everything). If they win, they are free to take as many "right hand possessions" as they like. "Right hand possessions" is Islamic lingo for female sex slaves (conquered by the sword). Apart from the four wives, a Muslim may have as many female sex slaves as he wants.

So engaging in Jihad is a win-win situation for the sexual lust of frustrated Muslim men. Regardless of the outcome, warfare will provide them with an abundance of casual sex. Sex without emotional ties, with women (many women!) who never say no, whom they can do anything they like with, including raping them. Islam is a religion with the spirituality of a porno movie. And quite as a porno movie, the religious message of Islam will play in the minds of the Muslim men, motivating them to engage in warfare, motivating them while waging war. The other motivating force is the fear of hell. And with an unintelligible god as Allah, there is no way to know for sure otherwise how to avoid hell. The only ones that are guaranteed a place in heaven are the warriors that die in battle. So even after plenty of lustful sex, raping their conquered female sex slaves, there is still a motivation for Jihad warriors to go back to battle. Muhammad thought of everything. Islam reduces Muslim men to penises, and these penises forever point in the direction of holy war.

It is important to understand that for Muslims, heaven and hell are very real places, taken fully literally. Hell is a place where molten lead will be poured over their faces, so that their bellies and skin will be melted. They will be tormented forever with fire, wearing garments of fire, And when their skin is burned off, a fresh skin will be provided, and he torment starts anew. Muslims are paralyzed with fear of Islamic hell. Both heaven and hell a places more real to a Muslim than the earthly life.

I will have reason to come back to the pivotal position of sexual perversion in Islam. Its way of explicitly encouraging things as pedophilia or cutting the clitorises off the women. How the Hadiths regulate things as the shaving of Muslima pussies. That it's OK to sodomize an infant, and to mix animal excrements in food. There are many of these "more complex truths" in Islam for Jim Kalb to ponder upon.

Islam is tailored to bring out the worst animally savage side out of male sexuality, likewise with criminal psychopathic blood-thirsty behavior against non-Muslims. While women are reduced to cattle, without human value, whose only purpose is to serve the animally savage sex lust of the men and, more importantly, as breeding machines.

There is much more to be said of how to properly characterize Islam, but this will have to serve as a start and a background for the continuing discussion. I have come to a point where I have a lot of things to say, for which a proper description of Islam serves as the background. So stay tuned.

Jim "D'Souza" Kalb

Lawrence Auster had quoted an excellent piece, by Jim Kalb, explaining better than I have seen before, how liberalism evolve, and must evolve, from something that is initially mainly good into the tyranny we have today. Read it, it's very good.

Anyway, inspired by this, I decided to read more of Jim Kalb, and the first thing I stumbled across was this. Where he writes:

Naturally, like other people I have views about which understandings are best. For example, I consider Islam better than contemporary advanced liberalism [my emphasis], the individualistic, nondoctrinal and moralistic Protestantism traditional in America better than Islam, and Catholicism better than Protestantism.

Islam is better than contemporary advanced liberalism... Suck on that!

In all his wisdom, Jim Kalb is completely clueless.

I have described on many occasions how much I respect Hans-Hermann Hoppe as a political philosopher, but consider him a political idiot, when it comes to real practical politics. Hoppe shows an excellent historical understanding and makes the perfect argument why monarchy is superior to democracy. The argument is simple, and actually based on libertarian thinking: Things will be better taken care of when privately owned, than if it's communal property. This applies to states too. And he shows by several historical examples that we were more free and better off before under monarchy than now under democracy. (More Hoppe articles here.)

Then he goes on to his Utopian fantasy about an anarcho-Capitalistic Natural Order without states, and with insurance companies taking care of police security and military defense. So he left, reason. Fair enough, most people do. After all, he's a paleo-libertarian. Then I stumbled across a speech he had given where he describes the Utopian paradise of his Natural Order. He explains how these insurance companies will create a world of Kumbaya, most notably by how they will contrive new and better weapons for warfare, that will reduce the collateral damage to an absolute minimum. Such is the pure goodness of these anarcho-Capitalistic insurance companies, according to Hoppe. Contrasted with the evil states, who obviously, according to Hoppe, have an interest in causing collateral damage, and therefore never would minimize it.

And it was at this it became all clear to me how paleo-libertarianism was rotten to the core. At this point, Hoppe had not only left reason, he had entered derangement. He had shown that deep inside emotionally he's nothing else but the very same Marxist , that he started as (with Habermas as his mentor). And I have always known that libertarianism is nothing else but inverted Marxism, where the state has taken the place of the Capital as the root of all evil. Just the two end points on the scale of the equal freedom of liberalism--one setting freedom to the max, the other setting equality to the max. The beauty of Hoppe's paleo-libertarianism had me fooled for a while, but I woke up from it. And needless to say, Hoppe--just as Jim Kalb--also shown to be a clueless idiot about Islam.

It was at this point, almost two years back, I found Lawrence Auster's site View From the Right. A site started by Jim Kalb. The theory here was traditionalist conservatism, from which I have found much inspiration. And now I stumbled across this essay by Jim Kalb where he clearly states that he considers "Islam better than contemporary advanced liberalism."

Islam cannot be compared to anything in the West! You can take anything of the West, from the most beautiful flower to the dirtiest filth, and there's no way Islam could ever enter anywhere into that hierarchy. Islam is what anti-matter is to matter. And the dirtiest filth of the West is infinitely better than Islam. People how do not have this understanding of Islam are useless to me. Jim Kalb is useless to me. Just as Hoppe he is a great political philosopher, but a political idiot (and I'm just noting for the record that he's a Catholic).

This further suggests to me that while traditional conservatism is an excellent political philosophy for criticizing liberalism, it is useless as a movement to stop the suicide of European civilization. The clarity and substance, of Lawrence Auster, in defending the the West does not come from his affiliation with traditionalist conservatism, but simply from who he is as a person. No more than the sense that is made by Ilana Mercer comes from her affiliation with paleo-libertarianism.

I had written to Lawrence Auster yesterday evening, in a vain hope that he would write back to say that this quote by Jim Kalb was a blunder and that he had fully repudiated it since. But no. Instead I can read at VFR how--while there are disagreements expressed--Jim Kalb's derangement is treated with respect, together with the willingness to explain for his position. All reminiscent of how the poor guys at Powerline continue to treat George W. Bush with respect. And VFR is never a site holding its fire otherwise. Jim Kalb is the Dinesh D'Souza of traditional conservatism, and any movement having such a person among its ranks is in deep trouble.

I have concluded that just as paleo-libertarianism, when expressed by Hoppe, serves as an excellent political philosophy, that can put forward insightful arguments, but is useless as a defense of European civilization. So is traditionalist conservatism. The excellent positions of clarity and substance held by Lawrence Auster comes from another source. An evidence of this is that otherwise him and me wouldn't have been in agreement so often.

I will have reason to come back to this whole thing. I'm starting to see things again from a new perspective. Among other things I start thinking that the idea of a conservative movement sounds as an oxymoron.

Catholicism—anecdotal conservatism

We can compare the Catholic Church to the European Union. A super-national super-organization, a hungry beast that always has to be fed and grow. It's like with Robert Michels' iron law of oligarchy. All organizations degenerate, especially large and complex organizations, regardless of how well it worked initially for its original purpose. And the representatives no longer represent their mandators and their interests, but instead only themselves and their own interests. The organization will no longer work for its original purpose, what it was originally designed to defend and promote, but instead for the organization itself. We end up with an organization representing nothing but the organization itself, its elite and its eternal expansion.

Today the European Union no longer represents Europe, it represents the European Union and its commission and its many politicians who profit from it. It's a hungry beast that need to be fed, that needs to grow, so that's why it considers Turkey being such a juicy steak. Likewise with the Catholic Church. It is already predominantly a Third World organization, and therefore in all aspects already represent those interests. As an open border lobby group for more mass immigration from the Third World. Urging its adherents to do good Christian deeds with regards to the "poor" and "vulnerable" illegal immigrants. All in all, as bad as any other universalist NGO we know about.

We can compare Catholicism to Sweden. Both well-greased machineries that worked excellently in the old days when the leadership worked for substance and success, and not for civilizational suicide as today. Why did it work? Because of--in spite of other superficial differences--the very authoritarian mentality of the organizations. Strictly hierarchical, where the people at the bottom never question the decrees of the elite. Why does it fail so miserably today? For the very same reasons. The suicidal commands of the elite is followed just as blindly as they followed the good leadership in the old days.

We can compare Catholicism to George W. Bush. In both cases we have the phenomenon of anecdotal conservatism. Bush takes a "courageous" stance against stem cell research, while pushing for national suicide by mass invasion of Mexicans into the U.S. Only having the cognitive capacity to understand miniature issues such as stem cell research or abortion, but not a single clue about how to rule a country; the importance of enforcing the law and upholding the national sovereignty. Not a single clue. Anecdotal conservatism is the ideology for political illiterates, an ideology which literally strain at the gnats and swallow the camels. And since 99% of the people on this planet are political illiterates, this kind of anecdotal conservatism is also what they perceive as real conservatism. Most people never seriously asked themselves the question "How to rule a country?". They think that politics is about personal attitudes, image and fashion. The think of politics in relation to their person, and not in relation to a country and how to rule it--they are the political illiterates.

Catholicism is perfectly another example of anecdotal conservatism, only taking firm positions on miniature issues, such as birth control, while being completely blind on the capital conservative issues, such as enforcing the law, upholding national sovereignty, defending our civilization. And just as Bush they are worse than blind. Once the perversion has gone as far as to strain at gnats and swallow the camels, perversion becomes the ruling principle. And therefore the Catholic Church, quite as Bush, effectively act as the enemies of our civilization. The combination of clinging to miniature issues combined with universalism, makes them use their miniature issues as a battering ram to break our nations. As when Bush says "family values do not stop at the Rio Grande". Or the Vatican's position against use of birth control, which has no effect in Europe, but only makes the population explosion in the Third World get worse; and of course by embracing Islam, and being maybe the most influential open borders lobby.

Challenging the obvious, Steven claims that the Vatican is not into politics. And I'm sure this is a true axiom in the Catholic mental universe. This is all captured in what Pope Benedict said to Erdogan when visiting Turkey: "We are not political but we wish for Turkey to join the EU". Catholicism is as much in denial about being political, as America is in denial as being an empire. But it is political; by pushing for open borders, by lobbying for Third World interests, by adding to the injury of the population explosion in Africa, by encouraging its adherents to break the law by helping illegal aliens "out of Christian charity", by embracing Islam, by encouraging Turkey's entry into the E.U., by advocating multiculturalism and political correctness, and giving speeches against "racism", "xenophobia" and "exaggerated nationalism".

But by being in denial about being political, the Catholic Church has never articulated a single serious political thought. Therefore the disastrous effects of its actions. In the old days, before the age of the French Revolution, political leadership worked, European civilization was not suicidal. The Vatican, then as now, was only concerned with miniature issues. But then it worked, and could at best lead to a perfect symbiosis between the political leadership and the Church. It appears that the Catholic Church never had a clue of what conservatism is; what is the substance of our civilization. When the West turn left, the Church turned left too, and as I pointed out before was even the vanguard in pushing for culturally leftist positions (it's inherent in the Christian ethics), such as multiculturalism.

But the sad part is that the Catholic Church is equally clueless about simple family matters, what is often referred to as "family values". If they would care about the birth rates in Europe, they would not put the emphasis on taking a position against birth control, but instead focus on the issue of the unbearable situation for European couples to have children. By being over-taxed, over-stressed, both have to work, rampaging feminism, etc. it becomes too expensive and too stressful to have as many children as desired.

But the Catholic Church of course never ever cared about birth rates in Europe (and here Steven is completely misguided). It's simply a dogma of Catholicism that it's a sin against life as preventing a human child from coming into the world. There no thought behind it, whatsoever. It's just a dogma that is followed blindly. The Catholic Church does not care the least for the survival of European civilization and if the births take place in Europe. At the same time they are happy to encourage and add to the injury of the very problematic exponential population explosion in the Third World. The Catholic Church wants as many souls in its organization as possible, it doesn't care the least where they are coming from. Christian values is behind one of the worst disasters of the time we live in: the exponential population explosion in the Third World. It's not until we leave Christian ethics, that we will be able to deal with it.

But it doesn't end there. Pope John Paul II, in his book The Gospel of Life, equated immigration restrictions with the sin of preventing a human child from coming into the world, both practices of what he calls the "Culture of Death". David Simcox wrote:

Papal pronouncements here and in Rome, such as the Papal Letter on the "Gospel of Life" early in 1995, increasingly imply a morel equivalence between immigration restrictions and practices of what the Pontiff calls the "Culture of Death;" abortion, contraception, capital punishment, euthanasia and assisted suicide.

And Lawrence Auster summarized it as:

the insane dictum of the late pope that to prevent an illegal alien from coming into your country is as grave a sin against life as preventing a human child from coming into the world.

Anyone who still wants to claim that the Vatican is not political? Surely the Catholics deny that their positions of Christian charity and Christian goodness are political. But it doesn't stop it from having an immense political effect. And Catholicism is worse than suicidal liberalism, since it is suicidal liberalism made into a religion. And if you ask me, the origins of suicidal liberalism is found in Christian ethics. I'm not at all surprised that the Catholic Church was the vanguard in pushing for a culturally leftist agenda of the destruction of European civilization.

And we see this materialized in how Catholic Senators overwhelmingly vote for national suicide. We see it represented in the comments of Steven, cluelessly rallying for banning birth control as the way to save European civilization. And when it comes to the kill-America-by-mass-immigration bill, his only comment is "poor America becoming a bit too Mexican". Poor America, by not enforcing its laws and by being flooded by tenths of millions of Mexicans, and yet more tenths of millions to come, is losing its national sovereignty, and is ceasing to be America. What Steven hasn't understood is that the issue is not about Mexicans. Whenever the issue is brought up, all he talks about are Mexicans. This makes it abundantly clear to us that Steven does not understand the nature of the issue. The issue is about America. But to Steven, as with other liberals, America, as a nation, does not exist in his mental world. This suggests to us that Steven never seriously thought about the question of "How to rule a country?". This is a white area in his mental map, so he will always gravitate away from it. As for other liberals and Catholics, the only things that exist are sacred individuals and super-national NGOs. Nations do not exist in their mental universe--so how would they ever phrase the question "How to rule a country?"

A position I share with Fjordman and Lawrence Auster is that the way to stop the civilizational suicide is to shift from the mentality of "saving the world" into "saving ourselves". We cannot reform Islam, and its not our responsibility. We can only separate ourselves from it, or defeat it. The "save the world" mentality leads to false paths such as global warming activism, open border policies, and providing Third World people with Western money and medicine to facilitate their exponential population explosion. All against the common good for this planet. The "saving the world" mentality leads in the opposite direction from the issues about saving ourselves, such as national sovereignty, law enforcement and civilizational defense.

It's clear that we have to stop saving the world, and start saving ourselves. But the concept of "saving the world" is hardwired into the Catholic Church. It seems itself as a universal organization (by name and by nature) with its purpose to save as many individual souls around the planet as possible, i.e. to make the Church grow in power by numbers. There is no ourselves for the Catholic Church, so it is an impossibility for this organization to do the shift from "saving the world" to "saving ourselves". Protestantism and Orthodox Christianity are differently politically organized, so they stand a chance. Especially the Orthodox Church with its national organizations, but also American Christianity, with its vitality, stand a chance. But Catholicism is doomed to forever being a dead branch of European civilization, at least unless the Second Vatican Council is fully repudiated.

This was my last post of my series about Catholicism. Here are the other posts of this series:
Catholicism—Vatican II embracing Islam
Catholicism—the open borders lobby
Catholicism—birth control and birth rates (part I)
Catholicism—birth control and birth rates (part II)

Catholicism—birth control and birth rates (part II)

Continuing my argument against Steven. I broke down his position into three premises:

1. That low birth rate is the main cause of our civilizational suicide
   
2. That the Catholic stance against birth control is the cure
   
3. That this cure must work

The first one I debunked in the first part of this article. Let's have a look at the third premise. For the cure to work, the Catholic stance against birth control must lead to higher birth rates. And to work as a cure against civilizational suicide it must lead to higher birth rates specifically among Europeans and people of European decent. Does it?

I list below total fertility rates for three typical Catholic countries as well as three typical Protestant countries in Europe.

Catholic countries
Poland 1.26
Italy 1.29
Spain 1.29

Protestant/Secular countries
Finland 1.73
Denmark 1.74
Norway 1.78

I have excluded countries which are mixed Catholic/Protestant, such a Germany or the Netherlands. I have excluded Catholic countries with low adherence to Catholicism, such as the Czech Republic. I have excluded countries with too high proportion of Muslims or foreign-born residents (especially from the Third World), such as France, the U.K and Sweden.

Even with a longer list of countries in each category we will see the same pattern. It will only make the analysis more complex. So let's start with the two tables above.

In the Protestant/Secular countries the birth rates are healthy and unproblematic. Even though it would be preferable to get them up a few notches so that they come above the replacement level of 2.1. The birth rates of the typical Catholic countries, however, are so low that they will become a threat to the national survival if they continue. With a constant fertility rate of 1.75 a country will still have 2/3 of its population intact after 100 years. With a fertility rate of 1.3 the population will have dropped as much already after 50 years, and will be less than 30% of the original size after 100 years. I supply my Excel calculations below:

Total fertility rate	#people per generation cohort	Total population at a given time	Percentage of original population	Years elapsed
	2
	2
	2	6	100,00%	0
1,75	1,75	5,75	95,83%	25
1,75	1,53125	5,28125	88,02%	50
1,75	1,339844	4,621094	77,02%	75
1,75	1,172363	4,043457	67,39%	100
	2
	2
	2	6	100,00%	0
1,3	1,3	5,3	88,33%	25
1,3	0,845	4,145	69,08%	50
1,3	0,54925	2,69425	44,90%	75
1,3	0,357013	1,751263	29,19%	100

The conclusion is that if Catholicism is going to save Europe by increasing birth rates it's doing a completely crappy job. Considering how much these countries have in common otherwise, one even has to raise the question whether Catholicism--with its "courageous" stance against birth control--could be the explaining factor in extremely low birth rates of European Catholic countries.

So even if Steven's premise #1 would have been true (which it wasn't, it was way misguided), the "courageous" Catholic stance against birth control isn't the cure, because the cure doesn't work in Europe. And before I get back to why, let's just give Steven's argument a last chance: doesn't a ban on birth control really have any effect or making people breed more? Yes, it does! In the Third World.

The Catholic policy against using condoms encourage people in Africa to breed more. There it works. It's a kind of a race between Catholicism and Islam. So if we want the European population to be less than 7% and the African population to be over 20% in 2050, this is exactly what the Catholic policy--that Steven is so very proud of--is achieving. I fail to see how this is saving Europe, though. And this addresses premise #2: a stance from the Catholic church against birth control is not the cure, instead it does the opposite and adds to the injury.

In 1950 58% of the Catholic adherents lived in the West.



Today only 35% live in the West.



Catholicism has become a Third World concernment. So how can the Catholic Church be expected to work for the interest of European civilization? On all points investigated it does the very opposite of the interest of people of European decent. And it's completely logical. The Catholic Church has become an NGO for the interests of Third World people, lobbying for mass immigration from the Third World into the West, embracing Islam, and boosting the population growth in Africa. Like any other super-national super-organization, the Catholic Church cares only about itself as an organization and its success by growth, and not the least about Europe.

So why doesn't Catholicism work in Europe? Because the low birth rates in Europe has nothing to do with birth control or abortions. It has all to do with the Europeans being over-taxed in combination with feminism. It's too expensive and too stressful to have many kids, and the mother is not home to take care of them anyway. But in order to please the Catholics and the liberals we import loads of Third World people into our countries, and then pay them to have loads of children. As German sociologist Gunnar Heinsohn said:

[T]ake the Tunisian example. A woman in Tunisia has 1.7 children. In France she may have six because the French government pays her to have them. Of course, the money was never intended to benefit Tunisian women in particular, but French women will not touch this money, whereas the Tunisian women are only too happy to.

So, finally, why then do the Protestant countries breed more than the Catholics? My explanation is that the Catholics in Europe are more hurt by the egalitarian modern ideals, imposed upon us, than the places from where it originates, America and Scandinavia, and where there has always been a more equal relation between men and women traditionally. Italian/Spanish men who never really cut the umbilical cord to their mother, are no longer attractive to modern independent Italian/Spanish women. Relations do not last, the women consider the men childish and irresponsible. If the Catholic Church ought to say anything brave in this kind of situation, it would be to say to the women to stay home in the kitchen. Its babbling about birth control only gives effect in Africa (where the women are already staying put in the kitchen, or the kind). Anyway, the situation for Catholic Europe is bound to have improved already within a generation. The new generation of boys will have adapted, or the egalitarian paradigm will be gone.

More:

Catholicism—Vatican II embracing Islam
Catholicism—the open borders lobby
Catholicism—birth control and birth rates (part I)
Catholicism—birth control and birth rates (part II)
Catholicism—anecdotal conservatism

Catholicism—birth control and birth rates (part I)

Back to Steven's comment. He had written that Catholicism will be the "rallying cry against civilizational suicide". To motivate this he brought up the Catholic Church's firm position against birth control. He wrote:

Witness the stubborn "obtuse" orthodoxy when everyone, most other churches included, caved in concerning the issue of birth control.

[...]

Practically alone, the Church showed courage on the very issue that has become the number one cause of what now is called "civilizational suicide" vis-a-vis the Muslim invasion, which is hardly an invasion at all, but a necessary replacement of missing human beings, required to keep our economies (all that matters these days - let's be honest!) afloat.

Civilizational suicide would still be underway full force even without the Muslims...

Let's get some background for the issue. Europe's share of the world population was 21.7% in 1950, and is projected to be 6.8% in 2050 (in 1995 it was 12.7%). At the same time Africa's population is estimated to grow from 8.9% in 1950 to 21.8% in 2050.

World population year 1

World population 1500

World population 1900

World population 1960

World population 2050

Just to be clear: When I talk about saving us from civilizational suicide I talk about saving European civilization. This higher, well-organized civilization of beautiful art and respect for the individual is intimately tied to the survival of ethnic Europeans and their societies. I do not consider a massive baby boom in Latin America as saving our civilization. I do not consider a mass conversion of Africans to Catholicism as saving our civilization (no matter how welcome that would be in itself, by excluding Islam). It's all about Europe and people of European decent.

Breaking down the position of Steven regarding birth control and birth rate, we get the following:

1. That low birth rate is the main cause of our civilizational suicide
   
2. That the Catholic stance against birth control is the cure
   
3. That this cure must work
   

I will show that all three premises above are false. I will start with addressing the first premise:

The Catholic and liberal position of open borders and multiculturalism leads to mass immigration of Muslims. It is easy to show that it's not the low birth rates, but the mass immigration of the Muslims combined with the demographic effect of exponential growth by breeding that is killing us.

To show this I made three tables in Excel. As a starting point we have a European country with 5% Muslims and 95% of the native population. In this model Muslims are getting 4 children per family and always import their spouse from abroad. This means they are quadrupling in each generation. 4 children per family makes for a doubling, and the importation of spouses makes for yet another doubling. This is a simplification. Spouse importation will be at 2/3 or 3/4, not 100%. But on the other hand the assumption in this model is that there will be no other Muslim immigration. The native population is assumed to have a total fertility rate (TFR) of 2.0, which makes them stay the same size generation after generation. For simplicity each born individual is assumed to reach fertile age, otherwise a TFR 2.1 would have been needed for replacement. It's further assumed that a person dies after three generations. The Muslims are represented in the left column called Quadr, and the native population in the column called TFR=2. Each row represents a new generation.

Quadr		TFR=2
5	5,0%	95	95,0%
20	17,4%	95	82,6%
80	45,7%	95	54,3%

Read the table in the following way: We assume that the population of this country is 10 million people at the starting point. So 5% Muslims makes 500,000; native population 9,500,000. From now on read the figures as hundred thousand people. The 20 for the next Muslim generation thus represents 2,000,000 people. Which give a total population of (20+95)*100,000 = 11,500,000 people. For the sake of simplicity we drop the multiplication with 100,000 on both sides. 20+95 = 115. And 20 out of 115 makes 17.4%.

We see that with a Muslim minority of 5% we could expect close to half the population (45.7%) being Muslim in two generations. And a Muslim generation is short, less than 25 years, since the women give birth to children early. The model neither accounts for all the native Europeans who will escape their country during the process. If that had been taken in account the Muslims would have been in clear majority after 50 years, if they are 5% now, and current immigration, and "integration", policies are continued.

According to Steven the low birth rates is the "number one cause" of our civilizational suicide. The current European Union average of TFR is 1.5. Basing our calculation on that, using the same model we get:

Quadr		TFR=1.5
5	5,0%	95	95,0%
20	18,7%	87	81,3%
80	54,4%	67	45,6%

We see that if we compare the tables that the low birth rate is killing us very slowly, while Muslim immigration+demography is killing is very quickly. After one generation it will have marginal effect if we stay at the current low fertility rate of 1.5 in Europe or if we increase it to replacement level. In Steven's save-our-civilization scenario we would have pushed down the share of Muslims to 17.4% instead of 18.7% with the current trend of low birth rates. And after two generations of Muslim immigration, with ensuing demographic effects, we are doomed anyway, regardless of whether our own fertility rate is 1.5 or 2.0. Or 2.5 as in the table below, which I added to show that even if we increase our birth rates substantially so that we actually grow again in a healthy way.

Quadr		TFR=2.5
5	5,0%	95	95,0%
20	16,3%	103	83,7%
80	40,0%	120	60,0%

Wow, only 16.3% Muslims in the next generation if we start breeding like Mark Steyn, Steven and the Catholic Church urges us to do (together with their position of neglecting the effect of the open borders policies). And we are equally doomed in two generations...

Muslim mass immigration is the black death. Low birth rates is a flue in comparison. Which one would you consider urgent to cure? Which one will kill us?

Birth rates fluctuate quite a lot. We had another period of low birth rates e.g. in the 1920s. And even in the extreme case of ignoring the problem for another generation, we would be fully capable of reversing the effect of it. However, with the Muslim invasion, it has already caused us sever damage, and in one generation it would already be way beyond repair. And the way to repair it is not for us to have more children. People who think so are narrow-minded and completely clueless.

(to be continued)