In last night’s Turban Bomb post, IoshkaFutz left a thoughtful comment about the decline of the sacred amongst us infidels, and the necessity for a re-sacralization of the West if the Counterjihad is to be victorious.
I reproduce his thoughts below in their entirety, edited slightly for spelling and clarity. The emphases are mine:
I am not proposing to give in to Islamic sacredness. Quite the contrary. I am upholding the sacredness of our own ethos including the customs it has generated as opposed to Enlightenment indifference.
Instead of the emphasis on taunting, the emphasis should be on simply affirming, (reminding) positively what we are all about, or what we were once all about… an issue far greater than freedom of speech — or else we should ask the Good Baron to change the fine pic at the top of his Blog and the caption below it:
At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war.
If it’s a very old war, what the hell were they fighting about back then? Ideology? Freedom of speech? The right to mock? Or bedrock virtues that were not today’s egalitarianism or supposed freedoms, but sanity, courage, forgiveness, chivalry, purpose (anti-fatalism), reason and on and on… right on down to our foodstuffs, stories, songs, wines and beers. (Which BTW are intimately connected to what was once sacred to us).
I say treat those things as sacred or at least sacrosanct… and then let them whine. To me the Muslims who in their mosques preach terrorism offend the sacred. They and our politicians (our state, our law) need to be reminded that some things are holy and non-negotiable.
I accept that the Muslims believe that their nonsense is holy, but I suggest reminding them in a firm and strong way that to us most of it is either downright sacrilegious or far inferior because our “sense” (our sacred) is holier… and that we are attached to pork, wine, song, dance, just as strongly as we are to the COMPLETE PROHIBITION of freedom of speech when it comes to preaching terrorism.
I say that despite all appearances, Islam is not deranged but quite rational. Rationally evil, but rational. Nothing deranged in the sense of “toys in the attic” lasts 1400 years, weathering absolutely everything that history has slung its way. They have a goal, and every single aspect of Islam is rationally poised to reach it. A teenage suicide bomber might be irrational, but suicide bombing is not. The boy is timed, primed and targeted for a purpose, by someone over him who otherwise would have not had a chance against overwhelming power. The rest of the world’s religions are in different ways blessedly irrational (mystical), but Islam has a worldly purpose and plays our Enlightenment weaknesses like a fiddle.
– – – – – – – – –
There are other considerations. For example, who is the real interlocutor? Them, the Muslims? Forget about it. It’s a waste of time. Our own mostly benighted people, and the fools that govern us are the only ones we may ever hope to reach. They won’t be reached by insulting the sacred. Because underneath it all, everybody has a sense of the sacred… and so they are torn.
In today’s world it is easy to arrest someone for being offensive. But if instead of a placard with a Mo-bomb, if there were one with a choice bit from our constitution… getting arrested, insulted, called a Fascist and beaten up would be quite a different matter. It would be incontrovertible truth that what we live by has become a dead letter. That we are arrested for citing our own constitution. This would pave the way for a necessary refounding.
Westerners need to decide what’s sacred to them. Mohammad is the top dog in that religion. Insulting the top dog could be a tactical error. It goes under the heading of “religion”, and religion goes under the heading of births, funerals, marriages… important passages. And, thanks to the Enlightenment, it goes under the heading of the “private sphere.” That is why some construe it as a gratuitous personal insult to each single member of that religion. Better to fight for a piggy bank and a pork chop, a Christmas carol, a brewery, a swimming pool — and work up towards Mohammad — than to hammer at the top while everything below is emptied.
It is useless to fight Mohammad if you’re too proud to defend a pork chop or a mannequin in the window. Unless you understand the full import of the caption under the Good Baron’s picture at the top of the blog, you don’t have the picture.
The Enlightenment has disembodied that picture. A country can lose its very soul, be knocked off the very kilter of its continuum under Enlightenment “rights.”
I understand Profitsbeard’s anger. But he cites few instances, Newsweek articles… I cite the emptying out of Turkey, all of North Africa. I can also cite Fjordman’s brilliant essays about why science flourished here and not elsewhere. The same goes for humor, entertainment, fashion, and everything under the sun.
It is easy to win an argument against “theocratic maniacs”, but they have their mirror image: the atheist rationalists, the libertarians. So on the one side we have honor killings and chadors and on the other Gay Parades with Virgin Mary dildos. They have everything sacred and we have nothing sacred. We have monomania.
This struggle is not about teeing off the idiots in the asylum, but about the asylum-keepers having lost sight of sanity.
If you want to drop an Alka-Seltzer tablet into a barrel of amoebae and watch them get riled up, go ahead. I understand what’s at play. I can get worked up in a lather about how they’re supposedly crazy (they’re NOT).
Freedom of speech is not going to save the West. Nothing “Enlightenment” will. The sacredness of our homes, our culture, our history, our customs will, if people wake up to them.
Nothing about Islam is sacred… but isn’t it odd that they are the only ones defending sacredness? Along with the food in schools and prisons, they now have got that in their bag too.