Tuesday, June 26, 2007

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.


geza1 said...

Thank you for posting my comment on your page ConSwede, I wasn't expecting that. I would like to expand on a some things that I didn't get to in my initial post:

1. The road to recovery from ultra-liberalism or Communism is much easier than the road to recovery from Islam. Recovering from Communism is easy because people stop believing it once the system completely collapses and this can be made possible without war. The only concern I would have would be the high rates of criminality, but even that would phase out after a few decades.

Recovering from Islam, and it has happened, is much more trickier and less effective. It either requires war, colonization or both. During the apex of the Russian empire, Russians converted Turkic Muslims to Russian Orthodoxy and Indians have done the same by converting some Indian Muslims back to Hinduism after independence. Both are examples of strong cultures who suffered much bloodshed to accomplish these minimal gains.

Now, imagine how hard it would be to convert 30% of Europe if it became Muslim. This would be like if Americans were in Iraq trying to convert the Iraqis to Christianity but magnified atleast twenty fold. If the number gets that high, it may become undesirable to convert them since most of them would probably be of mixed European-Asian/African stock. Even if they all became Christians it would change Europe forever much like the Catholic Mestizo invasion is changing America. Now try to imagine the bloodshed (from both sides) that would ensue if Europeans tried to deport a large chunk of Europe.

2. I am very disturbed by the universalist language Kalb uses to describe Islam. Catholicism is universal but Islam is not, despite what Muslims say. If monotheism was the yardstick of universalism then why does not Zoroastrianism count? Why does not Judaism count (Judaism is a combination of universalism and particularism since it has universal aims, but it is a religion only meant for Jews). Islam is a vehicle for Arab imperialism. Every Muslim is expected to pray in Arabic eventhough they do not understand what they are saying, and they are expected to pray towards an Arab shrine, and they are expected to treat Arabic history with more reverence than their own. Their pre-Islamic history is deemed worthless and that is why many non-Arab Muslims try to claim some sort of Arab lineage to make themselves feel important and also in order to be closer to their ARAB prophet.

3. More on universalism. Islam is a primitive religion and it only appeals to primitive people, not Westerners. The "truths" it espouses have more resonance with people who have a weak philosophical and literary tradition. You cannot read the Koran after the Bible and tell me that its prose and content is better. You cannot read Koranic conceptions of the universe after reading Hindu philosophy and come to the conclusion that the Koranic account is more persuasive and complex. You would either have to be a dullard or a Muslim to come to those conclusions. I have read Muslim theology. It is exhaustive but not complex. It is nowhere near as complex as Buddhism nor as illustrative or poetic as Catholic theology. Actually, it isn't even as didactic as Talmudic law since most of these Muslim scholars are answering the same questions over and over again instead of adding on knowledge to previous interpretations. That stopped once the gates of ijtihad were slammed shut.

Is it any wonder why the only Europeans Islam appeals to other than jaded Westerners are Albanians and Bosnians? Albanians still have blood feuds that predate their conversion to Islam and even Catholic Albanians partake in these. The Bogomils who later became Bosnian Muslims were so unsophisticated that the Turks seemed more cultured than them. Even the whitest of Muslims are of the lowest of Europeans. Chechens are white, but not European and their favourite past time is fighting each other with their bare fists. Islam espouses Arab truths and only those cultures that have some commonalities with Arab culture or are "impressed" with it convert.

The universalism of Islam is almost as big a sham as its claim to being "Abrahamic".

Desmond Jones said...

How do you recover from ultra-liberalism when it portends such huge genetic loss thru mass immigration of non-European people? What makes you think that in 2060 England or Sweden or the US will still be majority white?

From a Darwinian perspective ultra-liberalism is maladaptive. Ultra-liberal Europe is not producing enough children to preserve current population levels. Islam still has much higher birth rates. Assuming non-white immigration does not end under either U/L or Sharia, at least a white Islamic country will see increased birth rates.

How can whites in U/L 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%.

There is also the dysgenic effect of U/L. The brightest women have the fewest children. Not the mention the impact an unrestrained homosexual agenda. The ethnic loss is destructive whether it is Catholic Mexicans or Pakistani Muslims.

geza1 said...

desmond jones,

"How do you recover from ultra-liberalism when it portends such huge genetic loss thru mass immigration of non-European people?"

After it's collapse, through a combination of balkanization, deportation and low level civil war. Civil war may not be necessary but it depends on many factors such as the how spread out the non-whites are through out the country.

"What makes you think that in 2060 England or Sweden or the US will still be majority white?"

I don't know if they will be majority white or not. I can't predict the future, but eventhough the birthrates for the immigrants seem intimidating, I think immigration restrictionists overexaggerate how many children they are actually having and there is no guarantee that their birthrates will remain constant. The US in a worse position than the other two because the white population is barely 2/3 right now.

"From a Darwinian perspective ultra-liberalism is maladaptive. Ultra-liberal Europe is not producing enough children to preserve current population levels."

We are in complete agreement. I would also add that technology and high living costs are huge contributing factors to this as well. Japan is a case in point.

"Islam still has much higher birth rates. Assuming non-white immigration does not end under either U/L or Sharia, at least a white Islamic country will see increased birth rates."

Yes, Islam does have higher birthrates but with health care deteriorating the infant mortality rate may rise among the Muslims. I don't see them moving up the social ladder in the future so they won't be able to afford good health care. Non-white immigration will not end in an ultra-liberal society until the system collapses upon itself or until the power of the elites is directly threatened by non-white immigration.

An Islamic country can only remain white if its poor an isolated from the rest of the Muslim world. That's why Albania and the Muslim part of Bosnia are still white. Nobody wants to move there. Look at how many Muslims are moving to rich infidel Europe, and imagine how many more Muslims will move there once their power starts to grow or until a state or two becomes officially Islamic. It's the predatory nature of Islam, they go where the booty is. I spoke to a Pakistani Muslim acquaintance of mine and she remarked how she can't wait until whites embrace Islam because they will transform Islam and make it proseperous again. They want to live with rich white Muslims and they will interbreed with them. Look at North Africa and how they interbred with their white Christian slaves they captured. Muslims care about skin colour as well. They even describe the Quryashi tribe as being the whitest Arab tribe.

"How can whites in U/L 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%."

Yes, whites have problems and that can be blamed on U/L but more specifically the sexual revolution and feminism. I agree with you there. Under U/L, Europeans become defected Europeans but there is a better chance for recovery. Under Islam, they become beta-Arabs. Under U/L they may disregard or ridicule their culture but under Islam they will actively destroy it. You will not see any art, literature will be burned, illiteracy will skyrocket, science will become stagnant, and European languages will become corrupted with Arabic and Persian words. U/L damages the soul of Europe whereas Islam will utterly destroy it. I know this sounds dramatic but it's true. No English schoolboy will read about Athens, but they'll memorize the entire history of Mecca. That is what happens to entire cultures who convert to Islam. They worship Arab history and imagine it as their own. To me, something like that is worse than all the drugs and hookers in Amsterdam.

Desmond Jones said...


You make many good points. 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.

geza1 said...

We will have to agree to disagree then. If Europe adopted Islam (or any other non-European belief system), it would be cultural prostitution. Yes, Europe will keep its body (DNA), maybe, but it will lose its soul (culture). Europe needs both in order to remain Europe. I am not taking the Kalb route and saying that between a choice of Islam and extinction, I chose extinction. I don't. But Europe would not be the same and some aspects of our culture would be lost forever.

Islam may go, and I personally believe that it will go. But it may not happen in our lifetime and the road to recovery may be a long and arduous one. Most of India did not convert to Islam during Mughal rule and yet the Muslims nearly destroyed their Hindu culture, more specifically their temples. Since Hindus did not record most of their history, it took the British colonialists to restore it for them. Other than white Europeans, I can't really think of another altruistic race that values objectivity to the same extent and would do likewise if the same happened in Europe.

Mass third world immigration would happen under both a U/L or Islamic regime. Except under an Islamic regime, the immigrants would all be Muslim. Look at all of the Arab countries, they are mostly of mixed stock.