Thursday, October 11, 2007

Back to the future with Gates of Vienna

I once again take the opportunity to plug for my new website Recent comments at Gates of Vienna:


This is an automatically updated list of all the most recent comments at Gates of Vienna. Very useful if you, as I do, spend a lot of time at the GoV comments section. And now in an improved version, with better layout, and all links working properly. Check it out!

This is also the best way to follow my writings when I'm not writing here. Because then I'd be spending my time commenting at GoV. Here a selection of my October comments at GoV so far:
  • Here about the theater of the situation and the skill of someone like Lars Vilks in changing the script.
  • Here about why its objectionable to use the term "Islamofascism" (2 comments).
  • Here about how Che Guevara put "roqueros" (rock fans) in concentration camps.
  • Then I have written a whole line of comments in two threads about the destructive and hypocritical anti-white racism of the all-encompassing Left (which extends all the way into the right-wing), as well as about their hypnotic blindness and denial about their fundamentally racialist view. First in this thread: The Death of Johannesburg (4 comments). Then Fjordman posted an article, that fitted very nicely into this discussion: The Age of White Masochism. In this thread I have written 14 comments. Don't miss reading this article and the ensuing thread!

Another finesse with my govcomments site--apart from making it easy to find comments in recent threads directly, without all that tedious polling--is that comments in old threads, that would otherwise never have been read, come up to the surface at this site. There came one right now, commenting on a GoV article posted in September 2005, comment by Theseus.

- - - - - - - - - -
To make it even more interesting the article is dated September 11, 2067, and describes a future scenario: Russia and the Caliphate Sign Non-Aggression Pact.

I'm quoting from the article:
The last several weeks of negotiations were taken up with the status of Orthodox Christian communities remaining within the Umma and the Dhimmi Zone. The Caliphate has agreed that Orthodox Christians who accept their dhimmi status, pay the jizya, and do not overtly express their faith will be left unmolested in the territories controlled by the Umma. In return, Russia agreed to allow the Caliph’s troops to occupy all of Greece.

Roman Catholics and Protestants, however, are not offered the same protection. Observers expect the mujahideen to begin razing cathedrals and rounding up infidels in the newly-occupied territories, just as they have done in the French and Belgian sultanates. No non-Muslim journalists are permitted in these areas, but escaping refugees arriving in Israel have reported massive and brutal atrocities inflicted on non-Orthodox Christians by marauding bands of Islamic irregulars.

Russia and the Umma, however, are unwilling to let such events cloud their historic occasion. “Islam has made treaties with non-believers since the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him),” said Caliph bin Laden to reporters at the joint press conference. “We will accord this momentous agreement the same respect we have granted all the earlier ones, Allah willing.”
The scenario is realistic in the sense that Protestants and Catholics, representing the weak branches of Christianity, are the realistic ones to be conquered by Islam, while Orthodox Christianity is the sane and healthy part, and they also have the Russians who have no qualms in acting responsibly and defend their nation and their people.

So what about the comment by Theseus? Well, it was not worth reading after all. The moronic and tedious "It's the Jews" junk.

3 comments:

IoshkaFutz said...

Ciao Conservative Swede,

Whereas you are correct for excoriating Lady Dymphna and others for using the term Islamo-Fascism, because Fascismo and Islamismo are simply too dissimilar to be seriously linked, I think you are at fault for using the word "Dhimmie" to describe those in the west who are surrendering western values.

If you think about it, the real Dhimmies, vanquished by overweening forces, forced to pay an unjust jyzia tax, humilated, and even prey to the occasional Islamic killing frenzy, are despite it all CLINGING to something. Their's is the dubious and rather forgiveable sin of wishing to survive. Easier times could be had for them by simply pronouncing a hollow profession of faith (Allah is the King and Pinocchio is his prophet)... It's that easy to pass from outcast to mainstream... and yet they resist, showing cultural fortitude.

The "New Dhimmies" couldn't be more different. They are mainstream, they enjoy power and influence, they are relatively free, and despite all their blessings willingly choose to sell their culture down the river when there is no need to.

This may seem like a minor semantical point, but behind it lurks an even graver "sin" than calling Jihadiots, Jihad-smarties or what have you "Islamo-Fascists."

It is calling people with near-heroic attachment to certain values the same thing as traitors.

Dhimmitude is certainly an unfortunate state of affairs, not somthing to wish on anyone, but defeat, like sh!t, happens.

Using the term Dhimmie to describe a Ken Livingston or the Storting is the result of moral abulia. I prefer to call them traitors. There is nothing about them that indicates resistance, community, values.

Lauri Olavi said...

I agree with IoshkaFutz. We should get rid of all these too easy catchwords.

IoshkaFutz said...

Ciao lauri olavi,

On the very thread at the Gates of Vienna Blog that Conservative Swede links to in the mother article, he wrote:

"It [Christianity] is very flexible; it can adapt either Roman values or dhimmitude."

Notice how "dhimmitude" is implicitly presented in its false (modern) definition, as something to be negatively compared to Roman fortitude.

I wonder how we started calling the likes of Ken Livingston or the politicians afflicting Sweden "Dhimmies"?! Whereas I agree that Islamo-Fascism is a Stalinist term (which then made it mainstream)... What's the cultural blindness behind the new usage of "Dhimmie?" I think it's some proto-remnant form of cultural relativism.

Funny isn't it? The same people decrying cultural relativism, are heiniously guilty of the same crime. They mash long-suffering resisters with lily-livered traitors. And they do so with unthinking ease (it's not like they don't know the history of the real Dhimmies)... as if the human will were not involved. It doesn't matter that despite defeat, oppression and marginalization they remained LOYAL. Not even their opposition to Islam matters.

In other words, Conservative Swede and his confreres get it wrong on THE issue of fundamental importance: sticking up for culture, loyalty, holding firm, resisting! By comparison "Islamo-Fascism" is almost right! At least it's Islamo-Something-commonly-perceived-as-negative!

The "sin" of the real Dhimmies is that they find themselves in a degraded condition... they weren't victorious like Conservative Swede's fabled Romans. And this allows them to be called the same name as people in power, who publish newspapers, host talk shows, arrest anti-Sharia protesters, get financing for new wings of their universities (when the real Dhimmies can't even repair their few remaining churches). They're the same!!!

They're Dhimmies!