Thursday, June 21, 2007

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.


xlbrl said...

Mr. Kalb writes that Islam has been able to sustain life for millions and millions of people over a thousand years.
Islam did no such thing. Islam sustained itself. Mr. Kalb presents no evidence to support life was insupportable without Islam, and I know of none. The vast increases in Muslim populations in the last century are due to new-fangled infidel ideas such as innoculations, soap, urgan sanitation engineering, and plentiful food through Western methods and seed. Oh yes, and oil. The effects of Islam are not merely indifferent, though. They are extremely negative.

Conservative Swede said...

Islam works as a parasite, ravaging everything that comes in its way. Once Islam has sucked the blood out of the cultures it subdued, there's nothing left except for aggression between different factions of Muslims. Until there comes a new wave of Jihad and the Islamic world can thrive as a parasite again.

Jim Kalb's idea that Islam sustains life is amoral. It's cynically immoral. Or just the usual confusion about them being god guys because they are monotheists, which I unfortunately found being alarmingly spread among Christians.

Islam does not sustain life, it spreads hell on earth. I often say we have to be strong before we are good. But idea of being only strong and never good is repulsive to me. And Islam is not even strong, it's parasitical. It's a parasite spreading around the planet killing life as well as culture, leaving a wasteland behind.

John said...

Gnostic liberalism, at this point in history (whatever its earlier accomplishments in facilitating the rise of sciences, etc.) has become parasitical and life-destroying, however nice it is about it. And since it is the corruption of the best, why not call it the worst? Islam entails great violence, but so far it has managed to keep that violence within bounds; it is not self-destroying, so far (though i think it will be in the long run) but rather destroys its Others, and it keeps on going for centuries by keeping its own people sufficiently in order and reproducing. In contrast, liberalism doesn't have a chance of surviving so long when you look at the nihilism and fertility crash of the West. It destroys itself, which is arguably worse than being destroyed by stronger men.

Moslems today often believe in a return to an uncreative Caliphascist medieval order, one that if the population of the world is first reduced by billions, could plausibly survive in some violent cycle between fundamentalism and decadence (of the kind Ibn Khaldum described) for many centuries; but they at least believe in something. Bottom line: it's hard to say which is the worst (quick suicidal death, or slow with enslavement and small hope of resurrection), so i think you are a little too hot about Kalb who is a serious thinker, which is not to say he gets everything right. Death by Welfare State, tv, pornography, endless parties, and pot is not any nicer than death by Jihad. It is perhaps just a bigger more comfortable lie.

Conservative Swede said...


Death by Welfare State, tv, pornography, endless parties, and pot is not any nicer than death by Jihad.

This might be the most nihilistic thing I have ever read. Highly ironic coming from someone describing himself as a champion against nihilism.

Such a statement can only be based on complete ignorance of the nature of Jihad and Sharia. Or an extreme form of despise of liberalism. Most probably a combination of the two.

But this kind of moral relativism always comes as a double standard, as we know so well already from multiculturalism. A person who write such things do not imagine Islam happening to him or his society. He do not imagine that its his daughters that will be brutally gang raped, his sister stoned to death, his brother killed for apostasy, or his cousins slaughtered in a Jihad massacre. He imagines it happening to someone else.

In most cases we find an American conservative imagining it happening to liberal Europe, that he despises so much. A well known example is Mark Steyn who has as a common theme to fantasizing about Europe becoming Islamized. Writing things such as "Some of us think an Islamic Europe will be easier for America to deal with".

Conservative Swede said...


so i think you are a little too hot about Kalb who is a serious thinker

Jim Kalb doesn't claim to be a serious thinker regarding Islam. Fjordman, however, does. And Fjordman linked approvingly to my previous article from Little Green Footballs.

Regarding Islam, me and Fjordman are thinkers of the same school. We use the same sources, the main of which are: the Koran, the Hadiths, the history of Islam; the testimonials of ex-Muslims, and direct dialog with them.

Lawrence Auster said...

Either online or in an e-mail exchange, Jim Kalb said to Conservative Swede:
"My impression, then, is that the basic appeal of Islam is the absolute power, presence and transcendence of God, and the possibility of knowing his will and aligning with it by entering into his service.
"Those beliefs give life a center, justification and dignity based on connection to something infinite, and they make one part of a universal brotherhood that includes all those who share them."
I agree with this. I've picked up the same, not from living in a Muslim country as Jim Kalb has done, but from my readings in the Koran. But there's something crucial that Kalb has missed. The chief way that this aligning oneself with the divine will is attained is through the total devotion of oneself in war for Allah. Killing and destroying the enemies of Islam in battle, and dying oneself in the process if necessary, is the path to the highest spiritual experience for the Muslim. That is what is left out of Jim Kalb's benign-sounding description of Islamic spiritual experience.
Thus Islam is certainly a religion, but it is a religion that at its core is inseparable from the conquest, destruction, and subjugation of non-Muslims, whether this conquest is carried out through outright military war, or its variants and substitutes such as terrorism, support for terrorism, demographic inflitration, and cultural imperialism.
I agree with Mr. Kalb that we need to try to understand what makes other people's belief systems "work" for them. Describing Islam as a system of sexual perversion, as ConSwede has done, is untrue and unhelpful. It makes Muslims sound like monsters, rather than like human beings who are pursuing their own (defective and mortally dangerous to us) form of spiritual truth. On the other hand, describing Islam as simply an experience of "the absolute power, presence and transcendence of God," without specifying that war against non-Muslims is the most important component in this spiritual experience, is also untrue and most dangerous to ourselves because it would lure us into sleep about the Islamic menace.
What then are we to do? 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. On the other hand, pace Mr. Kalb, Islam is not simply a belief in an absolute and spiritual god but a belief in an absolute and spiritual god who commands the holy destruction of non-Muslims; therefore we cannot form a common society with or indeed safely share any common space with Muslims. Since we cannot morally destroy them, and we cannot live safely with them, the only thing to do is to isolate them permanently from ourselves. That is the only response to the Islamic challenge that will preserve our civilizational existence and our liberty.

geza1 said...

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 schimitars 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.

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).

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 transcendant 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.

John said...


You're right that I wasn't thinking of my family when I wrote that line, which could indeed have given the wrong impression. I know something about the practice of Jihad and I never want to see it befall my people. But I'm not sure I wouldn't rather see my grandchildren become dhimmis than to never have grandchildren born (which may be the way we are heading).

Anyway, my point really was that these comparisons are somewhat pointless and risk becoming unseemly. I didn't want to deny the relative comforts of the western suicide over the Jihadi enslavement (though certainly not for all concerned), just to say there is nothing nice about a society killing itself off even as it might seem nicer than rape, death, and enslavement. Giving up and sitting down to prepare for a quick and easy death strikes horror in me because it promotes (wrongly - but this is often hard to convince) a futility about the human condition about our hopes for real moral progress. From a moral perspective, giving up is one of the worst things a person can do. Being raped and enslaved is horrible, of course, but it is not a question of your own failure. Two different kinds of nightmare.

Ultimately it is societal and cultural death that was on my mind, not the particulars that may or may not befall any individual dear to me.

Jason_Pappas said...

Let me add to your criticism of Karl's apparent Pragmatism (the other thread), another problem with Kalb's approach (and Jim, correct me if I'm wrong). Kalb is taking an anthropological approach that becomes (unwittingly I assume) anti-philosophical and relativist. I see Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis taking this approach. It's not uncommon in certain conservative quarters. Robert Nisbet describes Edmund Burke in this manner and calls him the father of modern sociology (see my comments in this long article by searching for Nisbet). Now that I've classified Kalb with a few of the greats I assume I have his attention!

The problem with this approach is that long-standing cultures are given respect for stability even if they are harsh, oppressive, and inimical to human fulfillment and self-actualization. The Greeks, of course, struggled with the question of what to ascribe to convention and what to ascribe to nature. Aristotle's approach was both naturalist and philosophical. To this reader he is the essence of Hellenic greatness. Excellence of both character and intellect are both the power and culmination of a successful life. By contrast, Greeks disparaged barbarian ways that reject the life of reason. A barbarian, of course, is defined as someone who doesn't speak the language of rational discourse, i.e. Greek. To study foreign cultures as one would study other species rejects the essence of a natural and philosophical approach to man. It subordinates ethical ideals (and epistemology norms) to culture; and that's the essence of multi-culturalism.

I believe the Swede, Auster, and others are approaching Islam correctly by studying the texts first and foremost. After all, sociology can't tell you if it's Islam or not until you first know what Islam is. Slackers, cafeteria Muslims, nominal Muslims, cultural Muslims (as Spencer calls them) may all practice some aspects and (temporarily) shelve others. This can go on for generations. However, Islam is anything but benign; one shouldn't be fooled by Islam in remission.

xlbrl said...

One point on sex as it relates to Islam. Islam is so unsophisticated it carries it's disfunction as a virtue: multiple virgins in paradise are the unltimate in sexual and relationship fufillment.
How many Western men, given a choice, would choose virgins over experienced women?
It is no secret that Muslim Arab men are the poorest lovers on earth. Insofar as such subjects are available for survey, the Turks have won the race to the quickest, at under two minutes. From my limited second-hand accounts, they may be positive romantics compared to some in the Caliphate.
Islam's separation of the sexes and marginalization of women has many costs.
Apparently it is our role in the West to demonstrate what the marginalization of men does to society.

Conservative Swede said...

Here is my
answer to Lawrence Auster's comment

I have also today posted three other articles related to this discussion with Auster and Kalb about Islam.

geza1 said...

Pappas writes:

I believe the Swede, Auster, and others are approaching Islam correctly by studying the texts first and foremost. After all, sociology can't tell you if it's Islam or not until you first know what Islam is. Slackers, cafeteria Muslims, nominal Muslims, cultural Muslims (as Spencer calls them) may all practice some aspects and (temporarily) shelve others. This can go on for generations. However, Islam is anything but benign; one shouldn't be fooled by Islam in remission.


This is very true and one of the main reasons why Islam can appear to be in remission in small villages in Afghanistan is usually due to a lack of technology and access to good madrassas. There is really no reason to teach young boys about jihad if everyone they know around them is an orthodox Muslim. If they have no transportation, they may not even be able to leave their country. Jihad is much like the hajj, it is compulsory only if you have the means. You become exempted from jihad if you cannot travel to the dar-al-harb much in the same way you'd be exempted from the hajj if you were disabled.

However, the more globalized the world becomes and the cheaper computers, cellphones, and sattelite dishes become, the more we can expect full Islam to spread to these various backwaters. These backwater villages may only know the ritualistic aspects of Islam for now, but they will learn about jihad pretty soon. Even many of their syncretic practices will disappear once they are informed that they are engaging in biddah or possibly heresy. Is it any wonder why the most syncretic Muslim countries are found in Africa and not in high tech Malaysia like the media often tells us? Malaysia and Indonesia by extension may have been syncretic at one point, but now if you look at the insane rallies they have in Indonesia, they resemble the ones you see in Pakistan (arguably one of the most Islamic countries on earth in spite of its "secular" dictatorship).

Islam is the most literal religion on earth. Studying the sociology of Malaysians, Senegalese, Uighurs, or Albanians will not tell you much about Islam because neither of those people invented the religion. Study the habits and customs of the Arabs. To quote Andre Servier, Islam is the secretion of the Arab mind. Almost every Arab custom (many which exist among even Christian Arabs) you can find in the Koran and Sunnah. It does not mean every other Muslim ethnic group imitates them, but that is because they are "converts" and not the original Muslims like the Arabs.

A Muslim (ESPECIALLY an Arab Muslim) with a Koran in hand can correct a Bosnian woman who refuses to wear the hijab, a Turk who drinks, or a Malaysian who prostrates at a saint's tomb. The Bosnian, Turk, and Malaysian may hate the Arab but they will listen to them because according to the Sunnah, the Arabs are the best of people and the first to receive the Koran so they must be obeyed even if they have their own faults. That is also why the caliph MUST be an Arab of Quaryashi descent.

Becoming a Muslim who is in sync with the Koran is the goal of every Muslim on earth. Ignorance and cultural custom prevents that but it can be corrected if they are instructed properly by learning about the Koran and Sunnah from a qualified mufti.

Christian West said...

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.

Except that by the year 2060 you will never have that option.

As Sweden’s ultra-liberal policies promote deluge of Moslem immigration while it muzzles voices of opposition to the national suicide there is absolutely no chance that in the year 2060 there will be such a thing as “ultra liberal Sweden”.
“Swedish” Moslems by then will either be a majority, or great enough minority to intimidate the ethnic Swedes emasculated by decades of ultra-liberalism to forget their “ultra liberal” antics and show respect to Islam. No need for "Arab or Pakistani Sultan".

rebelliousvanilla said...

John, that's what you're doing though - giving up. It's quite ironic that I would rather die than be a slave and I'm a woman and so I am conditioned to embrace the conquering tribe genetically. Still, I refuse to do that. I don't think that life is so dear and peace so sweet that I will purchase it at the cost of chains and slavery. And I will not have children if that is the future because I will not be able to look in the eyes of my children or grandchildren and tell them that we were cowards and refused to do anything about it since we were too busy planning our perfect little careers, retirements and vacations. I'm embarrassed by how weak Europeans are as it is now, I won't take being a dhimmi. What is more or less funny is that I had something similar to what you say said by a 'traditional' man and I found it really ironic that a girl isn't willing to bend to the foreigners while he who is into the provide and protect thingy is willing to.