Friday, July 11, 2008

Geza on Kristor's comment

Lawrence Auster has published a comment by Kristor, "comparing the Auster/Spencer brawl to the Arian controversy" (also Paul Belien has linked to it).

The second writer on this blog, Geza, my one and only guest columnist, has read it and analyzed it. I will add my comments later, but this is an excellent starting point for a good debate:

By Geza:

Kristor has submitted an interesting comment to Auster and Auster misses the point again.

Although, I do agree with Kristor that Spencer has not really given a 10 point plan to deal with the Muslim problem but he has given suggestions here and there and Hugh Fitzgerald has given a very detailed plan in his articles, and I would say, it is a better approach than Auster's Separationism policy. But what Kristor fails to realize is that Auster's Separationism itself is only a starting point because he only vaguely states what we would do to weaken Islam such as a few surgical strikes here and there i.e. more rubble, less trouble. Fitzgerald is better in this regard because he has given many suggestions on how to weaken Islam abroad without the use of Wilsonian style intervention, such as a propaganda war through sattelite TV. Spencer, like Arius, may not see the logical conclusions of his scholarship because of his commitment to egalitarianism & individual rights but Auster has the same problem due to his traditionalist bias. Spencer cannot condemn Islam as wicked because he would be condemning individual Muslims and Auster cannot condemn Islam because he would be condemning an organic culture. The only thing Austerian and Kalbian traditionalism is capable of condemning is liberalism and its offshoots like socialism, "Darwinism", communism, etc.

Spencer has seen that jihad is the fundamental bone of contention in world history...He has not seen that if he is correct about Islam, then like it or not we are at war with more than a billion people; a war to the death. He has not taken the deeply shocking leap from a world essentially at peace to a world essentially at war.
-Kristor

This is probably one of the most important comments ever posted at VFR. Auster has not made this life-or-death struggle argument about Islam, though he has made it about liberalism. Until Auster writes an entire article articulating why we are in a real war against Islam, then I will only consider him a Usual Suspect.

If we are at war, then our policies must be shaped, not to support our enemies, not to welcome them, but to destroy them (-ed). In that case, all sorts of policies that would have seemed outrageous in time of peace become mere common sense; as Japanese internment during WWII was mere common sense; as Austerian separation is now mere common sense.
-Kristor

"Destroy them" is the key phrase. It doesn't necessarily mean destroying all Muslims, even though there is a possibility that many would die, but it would mean weakening Islam to a point to where it would either be dealt a crushing blow and have no relevance to world affairs. Auster's Separationism if executed perfectly, which is really doubtful, will only remove Muslims and weaken their ability to come here. It will not stop the oil sheiks from buying more assets in the West, it will not stop nuclear proliferation among Muslim countries, it will not stop Muslims from overbreeding, etc. There is more to this struggle against Islam than immigration policy but since that is the major plank of Austerian traditionalism he cannot see that if we remove them, they still won't leave us alone.

But Islam has not been "hijacked" by jihad. Jihad is essential to Muslims. They define themselves as utterly Other to us. And since the Muslim Other--unlike, say, the Inuit or Samoan Other--is inimical to our essential civilization, it forces an abandonment of Western liberality. We cannot afford to be liberal to Islam, or to Muslim nations, as we are liberal to Inuits, or as we were liberal to the Germans after WWII. The only long-run alternatives open to the West in respect to Islam are to convert Muslims to some apostasy or other, or to destroy them. Indeed, these are the very terms in which Mohammed framed Islam's long-run alternatives with respect to us. Thus they give us no option: they force us to the realization that one way or another, sooner or later, either Islam will be eliminated from history, or we will. It is a war of civilizations, and the only way it will ever end is if one of them dies.
-Kristor

Kristor then goes on to blame liberalism for our problems with Islam. Liberalism does prevent us from defending ourselves from Islam, but the problem with the West is much deeper than that. The war against Islam should have never stopped even if Islam seemed too weak to threaten Europe and colonialism against the Muslims should have been much harsher than it actually was e.g. conversion to Christianity should have been mandatory to all occupied Muslim nations. Europe was too busy fighting/competing against itself and felt pity for its rival. It was a combination of many things that made Europe forget the danger of Islam and liberalism was tertiary at best. This is the one problem with Austerian traditionalism; it sees liberalism as the root of all evil that is destroying the West. It's much more complicated than that and if anything, liberalism is only a by-product of Europe's fratercide, cultural malaise, technological advancement, Christianity, and even arrogance. This is why Auster cannot understand the reason why we are losing to Islam is not because liberals won't let us change our immigration policy but because the West (which includes most conservatives) does not have the heart to fight for itself anymore.
UPDATE:

Here's my take on it:

Regarding Spencer and Auster. My overall point here is that the product "Spencer" keeps what it promises, while the product "Auster" does not. Spencer is a specialist, an Islam scholar and critique, and does not claim to have an overall solution. Auster on the other hand does. But as I have shown in previous articles, his position is seriously flawed. As Geza said, he is patently unable to condemn Islam as evil, or to speak in terms of a life-or-death war on Islam. He even degenerates into ugly Islam apologism (something Spencer would never do).

From this swampy position Auster imagines that he's entitled to take the high road and take everyone else to task for their failures (and the Auster way of doing this is to tear them down in the dirtiest sort of way), even if the criticism does not even apply (tone deaf, remember?). Auster imagines that Spencer must show his anti-Jihadist credentials by writing a full length article on Muslim immigration (only Auster and his acolytes think so, no one else has got that idea). But Spencer does not profess to be an expert on immigration policy. How exciting, and more importantly, convincing would an article on Muslim immigration be if the only two points made were: we must stop further immigration from Muslim countries and we must convince the Muslims already here to leave. It's ridiculous, of course. Instead, Spencer provides the platform for Hugh Fitzgerald to write about these things (and about overall solutions) at his site. And with solutions that are more solid than Auster's. But what does that matter to Auster, who's got tunnel vision and is obsessed by attacking and tearing down Spencer.

All in all, Spencer is better aware of how we are in a total war with Islam, simply because he knows Islam better than Auster. And of course since Auster doesn't even have the focus on Islam as the main enemy.

[End of post]

38 comments:

DaleinAtlanta said...

Swede: you asked me the following, last nite, over at Atlas..

DaleinAtlanta said...

Dale,

Okay, you're one of the few that figured me out so quickly

Oh it was just a hunch of course, but I had to check.

normally I get the reaction I'm looking for, and we can go on for hours.

A way to kill the time, when you are bored, I suppose?

Are you actually in Sweden? If so, you're up early?

Yep. And I'm up late. Very "conservative" ha ha! I've been in a flow of blogging and such, but now it's time to go to bed.

Check my latest blog post, Auster's moral dilemma, and see what you think. Auster is considered as one of the staunchest Islam critics, but actually he's not. It's funny how when Westerners always seem to be strong against Islam, then when you test them they weasel out.

Whenever you are very bored and have much time to kill, I'd like you to butcher my ignorance of this article: Islam - perverted parasitical psychopathy

Btw, what do you think of Ali Sina?

DaleinAtlanta said...

I'll post some answers here, in-between my work on the phone, etc...

Conservative Swede said...

Dale,

Welcome to my blog!

It will be interesting to see what you'll say.

Hal K said...

Destroy Islam? This sounds similar to something a neoconservative or universalist would say. It's the neoconservatives who want to attack Muslims militarily in their own home countries. Islam would pose very little threat to the West if we stopped immigration, or at least if we had stopped it a couple decades ago.

DaleinAtlanta said...

Swede: I made a post on the article you asked me to read; deep stuff, I liked it!

You'll freak out all the Leftists and PC-types with your discussion of Islamic sex!

DaleinAtlanta said...

Swede: What did I think of "Ali Sina"?

Interesting person/website, whoever it may be?

I have no idea who they are, but I think it's a very good site, and very important, and it probably drives both the Jihadis and their Western Leftist allies crazy.

Interesting choice of an alias name; very clever in fact, well choosen for obvious reasons!

I like it!

DaleinAtlanta said...

"Auster is considered as one of the staunchest Islam critics, but actually he's not."


Well, this is a stunning admission, but before we got introduced on Atlas last night, I had NEVER heard of "Auster".!

I read dozens of Blogs a week, I hit all the major ones, and some very obscure ones. I read all the major news sites, every day.

I've been studying Islam for over 30 years; Lewis, Esposito, Glasse, Schimmel, Goldschmidt, and the "newbies" such as Spencer and Emerson, etc.

I have an actual Library, that would compete with the anyone's.

I even force myself to wade thru slime, and read a Lefty Blog on occasion.

And I have NEVER heard of this "Auster", nor his dust-up with Spencer, until just last night.

I also confess, I followed a link to Atlas maybe once last year, bookmarked it, but didn't really come back until about two weeks ago.

I've been reading alot at LGF, PetJawa, Gateway, and a few others.

So, I only have so much time; but the past week, I've made an effort to start reading Atlas, and liked it more and more, and it was only last night, I made a mistake and posted for the first time on that thread; I don't really have anything to add on the "Auster-Spencer" dust-up, until I have a chance to get caught up on all the background, and put some thought into it; but I see its inflamed some passions, that is for sure.

I wasn't really trying to get in the middle of that one, I just wanted to unload on Spencer; but sorry I did that, I now have a very persistent "awake" on my case, and I'm just not prepared to deal with him anymore.

I have a question for you?

DaleinAtlanta said...

Swede: except for Great Britain; which is rushing headlong into Dhmmi status, and I think they are truly lost; Scandinavia is bound and determine to surrender to the Muslim Brotherhood; I'm uptodate on my info, I monitor what is going on over there.

Tell me, as a Swede, are you guys "lost"; will you wake up before it is too late?

r/dale

Conservative Swede said...

Dale,

Swedes do not have the will or awareness to do anything on their own. It's not until several other European countries are acting first that the Swedes would even consider acting.

But this is more or less true for all countries. Few countries have the guts to stick up themselves, most notably today Denmark and Italy. Most countries will act like sheep and follow the crowd.

But the landscape can change. E.g. an Islamic nuke somewhere, and people will already have a different idea.

Conservative Swede said...

Dale,

Swede: I made a post on the article you asked me to read; deep stuff, I liked it!
You'll freak out all the Leftists and PC-types with your discussion of Islamic sex!


Nice! Where did you post it?

For other readers, here's the article he's talking about:
Islam—-perverted parasitical psychopathy

And we are also discussing "pearly boys" and stuff, by the end of the comments.

DaleinAtlanta said...

Swede: Hi, I posted a few minor comments over at the Islam-PPP thread.

Wow, Auster sure didn't like your article.

Frankly, I'd tell him to piss off; I'm not impressed by what I see of him so far.

Conservative Swede said...

Dale,

I get so discouraged by the Westerners. They are such wimps, seeing it all through such a Quixotic haze. Sometimes I just want to give up on it all and move to China.

The only really tough ones I have met are ex-Muslims like you, who know about Islam first hand. But there's not so much that you could do within your community either, ha ha!

So what the heck could we do? From where is it most likely to expect the decisive counter reaction? From the wimpy Westerners, the Muslims themselves, the Chinese, the Russians?

A few years ago my best bet was on the Iranians. So many Iranians hate Islam. But they are too divided, and I have learned that many, in the West, do not see through Islam so clearly, they just dislike it.

But I lost my hope in this.

Every third week, or so, I put my hope in the Chinese. Great people. A little road bump with Mao there, but still going strong.

Lawrence Auster has a good point in that white people should stick together. It's not a very unique point. All people have always sticked together, except for white people in present times (they are to full of cultural imperialistic universalist arrogance to do it).

The problem with Auster though is that he's stressing this point too much. Surely basic survival group cohesion has to be restored among whites. But I tried to discuss with Auster the importance of allying with ex-Muslims. But he doesn't get it. He's not a race realist. He's a race tunnel-vision-guy.

I learned about Islam from Ali Sina. I also worked closely with him in managing his site, five years ago. I know that it's only among the ex-Mulims that you find the really tough ones. Westerners simply do not understand Islam that deeply.

Even the Westerners who are tired of Westerners being wimpy, turn to someone like Auster in belief that he's strong and tough. But Auster is just another Westerner. And as you could see, when you try to tell him how Islam really is, he wimps out. He likes to keep seeing things through his Quixotic haze.

OK, trying to round this off. What I'm trying to say is that I cannot see Westerners get this right if there are not ex-Muslims around telling them what Islam is really like. Five years ago I thought Ali Sina's site, Faithfreedom, was the start of something like that, but it flopped.

Well, yeah, I'm looking for a solution. I don't expect you to give it to me, he he :-)
But what do you think? Am I on the right track?

DaleinAtlanta said...

Swede:

"The only really tough ones I have met are ex-Muslims like you..."

Wow, I'm sorry, I don't know how I gave you the impression I'm an "ex-Muslim"; if I implied that anywhere, then I was drunk when I said that!

I'm born and bred WASP from Central Pennsylvania, actually.

My father was in University during the outbreak of WWII, in the Army Air Corps ROTC; his summer job was construction in his home town, an accident one summer, before graduation, nearly severed his left arm completely; it got him out of the Army Air Corps, and ended his dream of being a Pilot; but it may have saved his life as the US lost 55,000 Pilots alone, in only the European Theater of the war!

Since he was injured, and no more military; he was hired by Firestone because his degree was in Tripical Plants, and he spent 13 years in Liberia, growing Rubber trees.

When I was 8, we moved to Nigeria, and he was working directly for the US Government at that time.

When I was 18, we moved to Egypt for almost 5 years, and I went to University there and studied Arabic.

Where there, I met the most amazing Omani girl, related to the Royal Family, she told me I had to be a Muslim to date her, and so like the lust-filled idiot I was, I said the Shahhada 3 times, and she declared me a Muslim.

Her father found out about me a little while later, and shipped her sister and her off to Switzerland and a private school away from me.

I never practiced Islam, nor was "officially" a Muslim after that, it was my only brush with the "dark side".

Besides, I found a Christian Egyptian-Lebanese girl right afterwards, to empty my adolescent frustrations on, and I didn't need to be a "Muslim" anymore.

But I've never told this story on a Blog, anywhere, anytime before, so I'm sorry I must have somehow given you a false impression, but I'm not really an "ex-Muslim", that would not be an accurate reflection of reality.

As for the Omani girl, strange story, ten years past, never heard or saw her again.

In 1988, I was in the Arabian Gulf, with the US Marine Forces. I was on a US Navy ship, and we did a Port Call in Muscat!

When we pulled in, I thought about her, but thought it was crazy.

later that night, we had a party for the Diplomats on board the ship; I saw an Omani girl talking to some of the Junior Officers, and I went up to her and starting speaking Arabic. She asked me how I knew that, and I told her I had dated an Omani girl ten years before!

She asked me her name, and I told her, and she just laughed and said "She's my best friend, she lives about 2 miles from here, here is her phone number!"

I called her, and she recongized my voice immeidately; she came and picked me up in her Benz, and we had a nice 3 day reunion, talking over old times, having dinner. (No, nothing else ocurred, it was innocent and Platonic!)

Then, we lost touch again.

Twenty years past, until this spring, about 5 months ago; I was messing around on one of those Networking sites, and I thought, what the hell, and typed in her name!

Lo and Behold, there she was!

I sent her a message, and she replied!

She's married now, to a British Lawyer, of all things!

Crazy huh, and small world!

Conservative Swede said...

she told me I had to be a Muslim to date her, and so like the lust-filled idiot I was, I said the Shahhada 3 times, and she declared me a Muslim.

Just like I said. You are an ex-Muslim :-)

OK, I might have jumped to the collusion that you were born a Muslim, but what the heck... :-)

Amazing story about that Omani girl!

Conservative Swede said...

Anyway, Dale. Back to my original question. You know the Muslim world better than 99.9% of the Westerners, so it still applies. What's your take on it?

DaleinAtlanta said...

Swede: I'm working on the computer now; so between projects and a shower, I have some minutes I can spare.

That's an open-ended question:

What's my take on it (Islam)!

Care to ask something more specific?

I'll be back in 15...

Conservative Swede said...

My question is: how can we mobilize the proper resistance to it?

I'm not speaking of weapons or other hard currency here. As long as it is used in futile attempts. like trying to democratize Iraq, it's teethless.

No I'm speaking of the mobilization of the mind. This is always the first step. Before Churchill attacked Nazi-Germany he had a 100% clear picture of what they were about.

But with Islam, even the ones that appears as tough ones at first, backs off in the face of the truth. How can this be mobilized? Could we make use of the ex-Muslims? Westerners with a clear view, based on real experience, such as you are also very helpful.

Or maybe we need to attack the wall of PC first, in order to even get through? Maybe taking other battles, which are more easily explained, is the way to lockpick the whole thing.

What do you think?

DaleinAtlanta said...

Well, sadly, I'm not optimistic.

I may, unfortunately, require literally a Civil War withing Western Civilization, to weed out the Leftist, the Anti-American/Pro-Jihadi Nuts, kooks, appeasers, Traitors, PC-crowd, Democrats, European Anti-American/Pederast Elite, Anti-American Hollywood crowd; the Leftist George-Soros bought and paid for Mainstream Media, etc..

Right now, all those groups are sympathetic to, and prove aid, comfort, succor, and encouragement to the Jihadi movement worldwide.

The basic reason is obvious; all those groups are Marxist in origin, if not out and outright Communist in sympathy; and Islam, as we all know, is the most Marxist, non-democratic, brain-washing of all cult religions; they have a joint history going back to the German Orientalists of the 1830's, right up thru Kaiser Wilhelm calling himself "Haji Wilhelm", wearing a Fez, calling for "Jihad" against the British on his visit to Turkey, and claiming he made the Haj to Mecca.

That's what we basically fighting here, beside the Jihadis, we're engaged in a ideological struggle within our borders, against the seditionists, traitors, appeasers, and kooks.....Sadly....

DaleinAtlanta said...

I do blame President Bush, alot, for missing the greatest opportunity handed to any President, since FDR during WWII.

Bush had a 91% approval rating, after his visit to the site of the WTC attack.

It was incumbent upon him, and his Administration, to lay out in no uncertain terms, the depth and the strength of the threat we faced, and he had to Rally the Nation, and the World, to the cause.

He did not; he, and Cheney, and Rumsfield, basically thought that this issue with Afghanistan, and even later Iraq, were minor little events, that could be fought with minimal effort, with no attempt to keep the American people on their side; to allow the Democrats, who will always be traitors, to set the agenda and the sedition, with the connivance of the mainstream Media and the active participation of Clintonistas in the DOD, State Department, CIA etc., such as Joe and Valierie Wilson-Plame, Paul Bremer, former Sec of the Treasury O'Neill, Wesley Cark, George Tennet, etc.; Bush allowed them to set the agenda, frame the talking points, and dominate the media with the incessant, mainly bogus attacks, that undermined his message, and the good things he was going, to the point where people basically quit listening to him shortly after the 2004 Presidental Election...

DaleinAtlanta said...

This was a crazy approach; Bush told people to go back to "shopping", and thought if the American massess remained fat, dumb, happy, and buying their SUV's and Playstations, he could avoid the Political fallout that doomed his father's re-election campaign, mainly over the economy, to Clinton back in '92.

But this was different, and Bush and his Administration, didn't see it; this literally required a WWII type motivation/mobilization effort: a draft, national projects/efforts, recycling, massinve programs to wean us off foreign oil, national service, weekly "chats" & talks on the threat, instantaneous attacks upon the Democrats and others who leaked information and pushed out bogus stories about the Administration, etc..

He/They didn't do that, and they squandered the chance....

Now, unfortunatley, the ONLY way to get it back, is going to occur, when Al Qaeda, or one of its semi-independent affiliates, finally does get their hands on those WMD's, and they will, eventually, and they take out the center of a major European and/or American city, and kill not Thousands, but Tens of Thousands or even Hundreds of Thousands.

And right now, I'm only about 90% convinced that will occur sometime in the next 20 years, or less.

In the meantime, with the impending election of the Marxist-Muslim Barack HUSSEIN Obama, who practices "Taqiyah", and lies to suit whatever political whim/wind is blowing today, into the Oval Office, we may be literally screwed as a country for the next decade or so.

France, is fighting back, as will the Chinese and the Russians, if they really get threatend, even though they enjoy seeing us lose people and treasure in Iraq/Afghanistan; Japan will never allow the Jihadis in; Eastern Europe is frimly in the American camp now, and will be a bulwark; Italy senses the threat, as does Spain, despite their new PM's surrender the other year, the general Spanish populace is too Catholic, and still remembers the "Reconquista" too firmly, to totally give up; the Swiss are starting to wake up; the Greeks, despite the fact they are Communists at heart, HATE the Turks and Muslims since time immemorial; and have backward applied their hate of Muslims to battles such as Thermopylae, even though Islam didn't exist then...

DaleinAtlanta said...

The Germans, are trying to surrender, but when push comes to shove, I think the natural racism and the Germans will eventually cause them to wake up.

There is no hope for the UK I'm afraid, I believe it will be a maily Islamic state, as early as 30 - 50 years from now; and as for your people, I'm almost as pessimistic, but we'll see...

Conservative Swede said...

Well Dale, I can just agree with everything you said so far.

It was the talk about the Axis of Evil that made me support the invasion of Iraq. It gave the impression that they had a more general plan. I thought, why Iraq? But accepted it as "first Iraq, then Iran".

It was all just talk of course...

DaleinAtlanta said...

I was in the Arabian Gulf in '88, aboard a US Navy vessel; we were having a pretty low-key daily war with the Iranians, over shipping in the Gulf.

A few days after the USS Vincennes mistakenly shot down the Iranian airbus (I was there, it WAS a tragic mistake); I meet a Bahraini-Iranian guy, who I had come to know a bit; he just said to me: "Don't worry, we'll get you back, you Americans always abandon your friends, and you can't stick with anything, such as Vietnam; the Vietnamese just waited for you to get bored, and you left; you'll leave here, and we will take over; and we'll get you back for the Airbus, even though it was a mistake".

He was right of course, we actively have 45% of our country trying to surrender immediately, anytime we are in a foreign conflict, and the Iranians were responsible for the downing of PanAm Flight 103, they used the Libyans as surrogates...

DaleinAtlanta said...

His other implicit message was: since you never stick with anything, and always abandon your friends, no one can actually trust you, because they know you'll always sell them out and leave, and then we'll be here to take our revenge.

Again, he was very prescient!

Conservative Swede said...

Well, I can't but help thinking of Bush I who in the first Gulf War created the expectation among the Iraqi resistance against Saddam that he would invade. The result being that many of the prepared for this and came out of their holes, with the result that Saddam could savage them to death.

Conservative Swede said...

I don't agree with you about the UK. At the surface it looks so. But if you listen to the talk at the pubs it's a quite different thing. This has been discussed much at Gates of Vienna.

In fact me and Fjordman think that the UK is the most likely place for a revolt to start:

Read this.

The higher and lower classes in Britain are two quite different things.

Conservative Swede said...

The thing with "Haji Wilhelm" is so amazing. But it's not the first time, or last. Westerners have often allied themselves with Muslims, in the most shameful ways, to fight each other.

DaleinAtlanta said...

Swede: I agree completely with you on Bush I; I was so pissed at the time, and I was an Active Duty Military officer, that I actually voted for Clinton, because I thought Bush and Powell had betrayed the Kurds & Southern Shiites so bad!

DaleinAtlanta said...

Okay, I went to the Gates of Vienna link, but didn't seen anything about Britain there?

DaleinAtlanta said...

Swede: Hi, I have ten min more, than have to get back to writing a paper for someone...anything else for today real quick?

Conservative Swede said...

It says:

"My bet is still on Britain for the first full-blown Eurabian civil war, with the Netherlands as a close second, and possibly Denmark. Italians will fight back. I don’t know if the Spanish will."

Anyway, thanks for today. See you soon!

DaleinAtlanta said...

My bet is still on Britain for the first full-blown Eurabian civil war,....


I would like to see some more data to see what they are basing that on.

The Churhd of England, the UK's clueless Judges, and even the addilpated Prince Charles would surrender to the Jihadis and Muslim Brotherhood tomorrow, if they could.

And they have the Treasonous Mayor of London, and that piece of crap Galloway, both closet Muslims, in their pockets as well.

I have a number of British friends, all upset with the way their country is going, and what it is doing, but they say they are real minorities there.

The basic problem is, Britain still can't get over the fact, 60 years on, that they lost their Empire, and the United States replaced them.

I grew up in a former Britist Colony, Nigeria, in the 1960's; all my playmates were British, mostly; and I went to British schools and had British teachers; talk about still whining about the US and calling us the "Colonials", even while begging us for Tang and other goodies we got from our Embassy, while there's abandoned them to live on the Nigerian "economy"; every conversation reeked of jealousy and envy of America and Americans, they loved us and despised us at the same time, and nothing has changed.

Heck, up until 1937, the British Admiralty considered the US Navy its greatest worldwide threat, and was holding Naval excercises for the "future war with America", while Germany was making long-range plans to destroy them, and Hitler was an obvious threat.

You see, the British, though they won't admit it, really, are blame for most of the problems in the Middle East today.

They couldn't effectively defend their vast Empire during WWI, and the Germans knew it; that is why "Haji Wilhlem" did what he did, sucking up to the last Caliphate in Turkey, and calling for Jihad against the British.

That lead to sort of worldwide uptick in Islamic fundalmentalism; Idi Amin came out of that generation, as he was in the British Colonial Army during that people, and saw the weaknesses of the British to Muslim aggression, and of course, he was a Muslim.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama's grandfather, converted to Islam during that same period, in response to the growning Anti-British movement in the former colonies, led by Muslims, and encouraged by the Turks and the Germans.

The stupid Brits had already encouraged the Zionist movement in England, going back to the 1880's in the UK, because they were racist against the Jews, and they figured if the encouraged the Jews to move back to the Holy Land, they'd be rid of them in the UK, and they aggravated the problem that way as well as giving liscence to Yassir Arafat's older cousin, the Grand Mufti of Jeruselum, support and saved his butt from the Turks several times.

In return, the Grand Mufti encouraged his number one Deputy, a man named Khairullah Tulfah, to lead a revolt against the British in his home country of Iraq, and Kahirullah Tulfah, was the dedicated Sunni Jihadi, and Muslim Brotherhood member, who raised his nephew....Saddam Hussein!

And Grand Mufti Husseini also encouraged and suppored his younger counsin, Yasser Arafat!

In addition, a young Indian in South Africa, saw the weakness of the British in Africa, and it encouraged him, and his name was Ghandi!

Finally, the British wanted to try and get back at the Germans for the trouble they were causing in their colonies in Africa, so they went to the Japanese Imperial Government, and asked them to help their miniscule Far Eastern forces to invade the German colonies in China!

The Japanese saw a great opportunity, did so, and realized that Britain was done as an Empire, and they'd move in; the result being Japanese Imperial expansion into all of China, Korea, etc., and that lead directly to the Japanese role in WWII.

Don't forget Lawrence of Arabia's role in encouraging the Arabs against the Turks, that caused the whole Arab Nationalism thing, and you can see that British weakness, and missteps dating from the 1880's, thru WWI, directly set the stage for WWII, and a post-WWII Middle East, and we're still paying the price today!

DaleinAtlanta said...

PS: and do some research, and read up on the Grand Mufti's role as co-architect of the Holocaust!

The Brits could've killed him many times, prior to him teaming up with Himmler, and planning the slaughter of Millions of Jews, and they didn't do it!

The Brits thought they were so much smarter than everyone else, and thought they could play politics with the Jihadis, and they've been burned for 100 years as a result, and have inadvertantly, naievely, and in some cases, deliberately enabled and spawned some of the greatest muderers of all time, as a result:

The Grand Mufti Husseini
Saddam Hussein
Yasser Arafat
Idi Amin

and they enabled the Holocaust, the rise of Islamic fundalmentalism in Eastern Africa and Inida/Pakistan and precipitated the Japanese rapes of Naking, Manila, and the occupation and brutalization of the entire Far East from the 1920's thru 1945!

A disgraceful legacy, the Brits currently ignore while still reveling in their Anti-Americanism!

Erich said...

DaleinAtlanta wrote:

"The Brits thought they were so much smarter than everyone else, and thought they could play politics with the Jihadis, and they've been burned for 100 years as a result"

This might be a relevant remark, did not EVERY Western polity in the last 100 years right up into our own present fit this characterization, concerning the problem of Islam. (Perhaps the French in Algeria before their war and into that war were more grimly realistic about Muslims (they had no qualms about torturing the Islamic savages whose grotesque savagery we know from Algerian history both before and up to our time have no compunction about slitting the throats of whole villages just because some of them are not praying on time), but that soon deteriorated under the massive effects of politically correct multiculturalism in the early 1960s that attended their Algerian "Vietnam".)

nzconservative said...

Islam isn't the main threat to the West - its the main threat to Europe.

If Europe wants to start to getting stauch with the Islamic world thats fine.

As far as America goes the main threat is Hispanic immigration, and Australia's main concern is being taking over by Asia.

Another point, why should the West (especially the US) be launching costly wars in the Middle East, while Asia (soon to be richer than the West) sits back and grows stronger?

The strength of the traditionalist approach is that if the West closes its borders more Muslims will try there luck in the East and run up against the more ruthless Chinese.

nzconservative said...

sorry, staunch.

rebelliousvanilla said...

ConservativeSwede, you don't have to find a husband among the weaklings that the present European men are, so I'd say that for me this is a double whammy. :P I agree with you though, I can't believe that these are the people who ruled the world and colonized it. But again, I can't believe that Swedish people are descendants of the vikings either for the same reason. It's funny, but I realized that I am tougher on things than a lot of Western men are, which is sad.

About the British - they always had a weird foreign policy related to the Muslim world. I remember that they didn't want to recognize my country's independence from the Porte at first. On the other hand, what they do is logical because they had to make the other European powers fight in order to be able to be a front runner in the race for the colonies and the race to preserve them.

Anyway, I agree that Bush actually had the opportunity to destroy liberalism after 9/11. He could have had a great speech about what brought us here and the changes we need to make. He had the opportunity to be of the same significance as Ronald Reagan, but he failed to do so. Sadly, as you said so, even the Westerners who dislike Islam have no reasons for it, they just do it, so when someone confronts them about it, they just cower back. I guess they are part of the 80% of the populace who shouldn't have political thoughts.

Hal K, I wouldn't destroy Islam. I'd just make them get it that if they attack us, they won't have schools, homes, mosques or anything else and I would start to discredit their movement through the press - it's how the anti-communist movement survived in my country. Radio Free Europe FTW. Basically, what I would do is first cut the welfare and governmental funds to Muslims while ban the building of new mosques and demolish the ones that preach hate - which is basically most of them. Then I would start making life uncomfortable in my country for them in such a way that they would leave peacefully, while crushing their protests if they rioted and deporting those that rioted. Eventually their number would be small enough to safely deport them. I would do the same for all violent non-European groups, I would ban immigration and asylum and restrict voting in the way I described before. Oh, and I would do away with the hate speech laws, hate crime laws and so on. Most importantly, I would promote home schooling and do tax deductions of $10k an year for each child a married couple has while doing away with the welfare for single mothers and child support for unmarried people(the deduction in equivalent dollars was the one I stated when the West had high fertility and people were forced to reproduce or starve when old - why do you think people without hefty retirement provisions prefer to have boys?). I would also do away with no-fault divorce and make a harsh criminal code - someone getting out in 3 years for rape like in my country is a farce. I like Singapore's criminal code. I would also do away with gun laws, most of the regulation and taxes and so on. I just need a country that will let me rule as a living goddess and everything will be cool. :P