Did We Forget?

Seventeen years is a long time.

Or it is for younger people; for someone of my advanced age, events of seventeen years ago seem like just the other day. Assuming I can remember them at all, that is.

September 11, 2001 is one of those days I can remember quite clearly: what I was doing, the course of events during the day and for the next few days. I assume it’s the same for many people in my age bracket: those hours are now permanent markers, stuck fast in the brain until the final dissolution removes everything.

In contrast, consider someone who has just graduated from high school. He was just a tiny infant back then, so everything he knows about 9/11 — assuming he is aware of it at all — he learned from his parents, or his teachers, or the TV, or his phone.

A young woman who just graduated from college this past spring is not that much better off. She was probably aware that the adults around her were upset and acting strangely. She probably saw some confusing and disturbing images of destruction and panic on television. But other than that, her knowledge of 9-11 would be from her elders, the TV, her phone, and her college professors.

The cohort who took their doctorates last spring — with a median age of what? 26, maybe? — fare slightly better. They were in grade school at the time, and in the days following surely they heard discussion in class from teachers who had not yet fully assimilated the politically correct line on what happened in Manhattan and Washington on that beautiful fall day.

And so it goes, on up through the age groups until you reach us geezers, who definitely remember. Or at least some of us do.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

I saw a hash tag yesterday: #NeverForget911.

My reaction was immediate and cynical: It should read #WeForgot911.

But how much forgetting has really taken place? Of those who were adults in the fall of 2001, how many paid attention, assimilated the memories, and incorporated them into a meaningful structure that was permanently retained? And how many simply went back to the way they had lived before, letting 9/11 become a brief blip in an otherwise undisturbed succession of life experiences?

I don’t know the answers to those questions. My intuition tells me that many younger people — who have been subjected to far more relentless indoctrination than I ever have — regard 9/11 through the politically correct lens that their education and the media have so painstakingly constructed for them.

My intuition also says that those of us who were over fifty when it happened probably retain a slightly less propagandistic memory of it. But only slightly, most of us — my generation stares at the vidscreen a lot, too.

For some of us, however, the events of September 11, 2001, were the beginning of seventeen years of close investigation of Islam. Back then I had read V.S. Naipaul’s Among the Believers. But nothing else. The Sword of the Prophet by Srdja Trifkovic was to come later. The writings of Robert Spencer later still. And then Reliance of the Traveller and Steve Coughlin. And much more in the years since.

In seventeen years I have learned enough to know that the dominant Western cultural narratives about Islam are simply false. If you do your investigations with due diligence — and especially if you follow Maj. Coughlin’s advice, and read sources written by Muslims, intended for a Muslim audience — you learn the extent to which you have been lied to and misled by your own leaders, who themselves have listened to the whispers of Muslim Brotherhood infiltrators.

The construction of what became the current Narrative began shortly after 9-11 with President George W. Bush, the man who inspired us all when he stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center. Islam was proclaimed to be the Religion of Peace (and eventually the “Religion of Peace and Love”, by Condoleezza Rice). A great religion had been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists. The words “Islamism” and “Islamist” were coined to provide good cover for our friends, the nice Muslims, the “moderate” Muslims. The word “Islamophobe” gained greater and greater currency to describe those who refused to swallow the Narrative.

And so on and so forth, until we arrive at the present day, seventeen years later, when it is no longer possible to publicly assign the problem to Islam itself. Islam unmodified, without prefixes or suffixes. The core ideology, which is not religious, but political. A totalitarian ideology which has world domination as its long-term goal — 1,400 years and counting.

You can’t say those things and expect to hold onto your job, even if it’s with a private corporation. If you wear a slogan like that on a t-shirt, you risk a public beating.

And there are more Muslims now in all Western countries, and more official or unofficial rules against offending them, more public recognition of their sacred days and customs and sensibilities.

Yes, #WeForgot911.

At least enough of us did to facilitate the eventual victory of the Sword of the Prophet.

No to the Anti-Defamation League in Glendale and Elsewhere

David Boyajian sends this overview of the ADL’s continuing opposition to the official recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the U.S. government.


Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan receives Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) ‘Courage to Care’ award from ADL’s director Abraham Foxman at the ADL headquarters, New York in 2005 (Credit: David Karp and St. Louis Jewish Light).

No to the Anti-Defamation League in Glendale and Elsewhere

By the Armenian Americans for Human Rights

You may recall the national and international firestorm that broke out in 2007 when Armenian Americans in Massachusetts took action against the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the most well-known Jewish organization in America.

Colluding with Turkey and Israel, the ADL was denying and/or diminishing the Armenian Genocide and lobbying against its recognition by the U.S. Congress.

It is the height of hypocrisy for an American organization to continually demand commemoration of and legislation on the Holocaust while simultaneously working against the same for a Christian genocide.

Over a span of months, the Armenian community, human rights advocates, and many principled Jews expelled ADL programs such as “No Place for Hate” from over a dozen Massachusetts cities because the ADL’s actions contradicted the civil/human rights principles that it claims to uphold. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, representing all the state’s cities and towns, also rejected the ADL.

Demonstrations against the ADL took place throughout the U.S. including in New York City, Michigan, and San Francisco. Glendale also did its part.

On December 4, 2007, supported by ANC-Glendale Executive Director Elen Asatryan and GUSD Board President Greg Krikorian, Herbert Hoover High School cancelled a scheduled three-day ADL “World of Difference” program.

Armenians appreciate, of course, those principled Jewish organizations and individuals, including historians and elected officials, who have always accepted the factuality of the Armenian Genocide and supported its recognition.

The AAHR letter

A few months ago, the Massachusetts-based Armenian Americans for Human Rights (AAHR) organization sent a copiously documented 24-page letter to Glendale’s Mayor, City Council, and GUSD’s Board of Education and Superintendent. AAHR sent similar letters to several Massachusetts cities which, like Glendale, had previously expelled the ADL.

AAHR’s letter details not only the ADL’s actions against Armenians but also its appalling conduct in American society over the course of decades. The letter concludes by asking Glendale and other municipalities to continue to exclude the ADL from their communities and schools.

A very bad deal

However, two years ago, Newton, MA schools — whether inadvertently or otherwise — invited in an ADL program despite the fact that in 2007 the city’s Human Rights Commission and then-Mayor David Cohen had ousted the ADL due to its anti-Armenian activities.

Unfortunately — and contrary to the advice of Boston-area Armenian activists who had initiated and continued the 2007-8 campaign against the ADL — a small group of Armenians unwisely rushed in and in 2016 made a terrible deal with the ADL.

The ill-advised deal resulted in ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt’s acknowledging — but only on the ADL website’s “blog” page — the Armenian Genocide and claiming that his organization “would support” (notdoes support” or “will support”) an Armenian Genocide resolution in Congress.

Only the ADL’s National Executive Committee and National Commission, however, not Greenblatt, can make official ADL policy. It’s unclear whether these two bodies have ever formally done so.

Moreover, as the AAHR letter points out, the ADL has yet to publicly confirm that it actively supports the Armenian Genocide resolution. Indeed, the ADL has never fulfilled Armenian Americans’ original demand of 11 years ago — namely, that as partial atonement for its reprehensible behavior, the ADL must lobby as vigorously for an Armenian Genocide resolution as it has for Holocaust legislation.

Even a former top ADL leader has called Greenblatt’s 2016 “blog” post “inadequate … assets, land … everything that Holocaust reparations … has represented should be on the table.”

AAHR’s letter also notes that the ADL has never once apologized for its many wrongdoings against Armenians. Nor has the ADL explained, and opened its files regarding, its collusion with a foreign power — Turkey — to sway a U.S. Congressional vote.

Continue reading

The War Against the West? Still Going Strong!

In the following essay our Dutch correspondent H. Numan provides a refresher course (or introductory course, in the case of newly-minted “Islamophobes”) about the history of Islam’s continuous war against Europe.

The war against the West? Still going strong!

by H. Numan

The war for the West isn’t going to start any day soon, as most people seem to think. It’s already underway. Or more accurately: it has never stopped since 622 AD. Most people only know a little bit about some major conquests, and not a lot of those. Nothing about the many countless smaller battles and wars that continued almost non stop. Some people know about the Battle of Roncevalles or Roncevaux in 788 AD, mainly because of the Song of Roland. Fewer people know about Charles Martel, who defeated the mohammedan invasion decisively earlier in France. Fewer people still know about the many invasion attempts deep into France almost to the Swiss border. And it didn’t stop there. Of course here at Gates of Vienna we know about the siege of that city in 1683.

Did you know that hussars were a Hungarian answer to Turkish invasions? I’ll bet you win a lot of drinkies in the bar if you challenge your friends with that one. Not the first time the Hungarians bore the brunt of the attack.

We don’t learn about it. It’s not politically correct. You have to figure everything out for yourself. If you read up, as I did, you will notice our war began in 622 AD and never really ceased. All you can hope for is for a Chamberlainian ‘peace for our time’. Not for your children, certainly not for your grandchildren. Islam is very much like cancer. You have to eradicate it completely. Otherwise it will grow back. Usually much stronger and far more aggressive. The virus very much learns from past experiences. Let one single cell be, and you are mortal peril. That’s a bold statement, but regretfully, it’s the truth. Dr. Bill Warner counted over 700 battles for Europe, from 622 AD until today.

“But we can live in peace with muslims; we have done that always,” whine politically correct dhimmis — left and right. No, we didn’t. But we don’t read about it. You have to dig for it. We didn’t in the past, as you can’t learn everything from history. The relatively unimportant parts were left out. Those parts are coming back to hound us now.

That’s why we discovered America. After the end of the crusades — which we lost — Constantinople had fallen to the Turks. They now controlled the Silk road to China. The sultan wasn’t interested in continuing trade, not even at extortionate rates. An alternative route had to be found. Sailing along the coast of Africa was highly dangerous, because of the Barbary coast pirates (next paragraph). That is one of the reasons why Columbus tried to sail to the west. It was at least an indirect consequence of the crusades.

We have to do it all over again. This time not with spices but with oil. There is a lot of oil in the world, but most of it lies below Arab countries. Back then our need of spices was used to strangle the West, now they do it with oil. When spice prices got high enough, it became commercially viable to take the dangerous and expensive sea route instead of the overland route. Likewise, we will have to find alternatives for Arab oil. Shale oil becomes an economical alternative if OPEC holds onto its monopoly. The same for alternative energy sources. History repeats itself.

Forgotten are the many Barbary wars we had to fight. Not only Dutch fought them, but the West in general. Like England and France. Even America had to. Your founding fathers were just as dumbfounded about mohammedanism as we are today. Few people are aware that the area of the North African coast was known as the Barbary Coast for centuries. Its rulers extracted tribute for allowing ships to trade along the African coast and into the Mediterranean. That tribute was jizya. Our Michiel de Ruyter had to fight several battles and wars against them. So did your Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson once asked a Barbary representative why they couldn’t leave people alone and why they levied such high fees and never kept their side of the agreement. The muslim was very much surprised. Why, you have to pay jizya, of course. You are a non-believer. We can do anything we want with unbelievers. He even said the ultimate goal was world domination. Yes, even back then. He didn’t commit Taqiya, which is unusually rare for a muslim.

Continue reading

The Party-Line Infighting Over Kavanaugh Begins

Ted Cruz outlines the dastardly Dems’ plans to eviscerate the Consitution, which is one reason they’re playing kabuki theatre in the Senate. Evidently the mud was being flung all over the place by these jokers, before Cruz (who lost to Trump) reminded everyone why they are there:

Note the bumptiously obscene numbers of documents the judge handed over. And note, too, why their call for confidential papers that passed over Kavanaugh’s desk during his tenure as Bush ’43’s staff secretary. They make these juvenile demands knowing full well that no one in Kavanaugh’s position would ever do such a thing.

I chose not to watch the ugly chaos on display as an introduction to these hearings. However, it’s sad that Kavanaugh’s daughters felt the need to flee the scene. No child should have to watch the attempted smear of his or her father’s life, career, and character.

[But meanwhile notice the cutie in the back and to your right, behind Senator Cruz. The cool dude in the white shirt and forest green tie? Yes, he smirked a bit, but that’s okay: eye candy has its privileges, no?]

Orban and Salvini’s Concerted Push-Back

Look out, Merkel and Macron. The water must be above your ankles by now. Keep bailing!

Dr. Turley again, talking about the eventual Fail of the globalist EU and its replacement by an updated version. One with border security and cultural pride.

When you open the video, move the bar over to 1:00 minute to skip the annoying commercial. YooTube said it would begin at 1:00 minute, but it lied. Too bad Turley’s doing that. It detracts considerably from his message.

I believe Vlad Tepes is working on a subtitled video of the Orban/Salvini meeting. That should be entertaining; Salvini missed his calling as an actor who proclaims with gusto.

It’s good to know the important things that the MSM doesn’t bother reporting.

The Five Choices


Sweden — The Partition of India

Update from the Baron:I was using Dymphna’s computer, and forgot to log in as the Baron before posting. But this really is one of my posts.

Ten years ago, El Inglés wrote his ground-breaking essay about the dilemma that Western Europe is currently facing, “Surrender, Genocide… or What?”. It made heads explode even among certain of our supposedly “conservative” allies.

Last week we discussed partition, which is a third option.

Now our long-time commenter RonaldB has added two more options in remarks about the fall of Uppsala. He was specifically addressing the situation in Sweden, but his descriptions are equally applicable to all of Western Europe and the UK, with Canada and Australia moving along right behind them. Even the USA will face the same dilemma, at least in some of our major metropolitan areas, within fifteen or twenty years, so this is something we should all be thinking about carefully.

Option #5 is “Genocide”, but I would assume it includes ethnic cleansing, which might be called “Genocide Lite”.

Remember: The most important thing about these options is not whether one or another of them is the one you prefer. There are two important questions to consider (besides the morality of the chosen solution):

1.   Is the choice politically possible? For instance, I often hear statements to the effect that “All seditious Muslims must be immediately deported, all the mosques must be closed, and all the globalist elite traitors must be tried and executed.” OK, I hear the suggestion. But it is not politically possible, neither now nor for the foreseeable future. So why bother discussing it?
2.   Is the choice viable? That is, even if it is politically possible, would it work? Can it accomplish its goals, or is it almost certain to fail? It’s my contention that partition might be just barely possible in political terms (after all, it was implemented in India in 1947), but it is not viable — it would fail, and fail quickly. Western Europe and India are very different cases.
 

Dymphna and I will shortly be going out for a little while. Y’all can start the discussion, and when we get back, we’ll moderate the comments.

Here’s what RonaldB had to say:

1.   Surrender
    This is indistinguishable from what they’re doing now. Withdraw the police, allow sharia law, sharia enforcement police, sharia courts to do as they wish, and continue sending in welfare and public assistance, including housing and medical care, for any Muslim from the area who applies for it.
2.   Partition
    Build a wall or impenetrable fence around the area, move any Muslims or immigrants in the surrounding area into the partitioned territory, and leave it alone. The main difference between this and surrender is that people from inside the area will not be allowed into Sweden, and no assistance will be given. They can apply to the EU, Saudi Arabia, or anyone else who wants to give them money. Whether they starve will no longer be a concern.
3.   Mass expulsions
    This will take some real planning, as a place must be found to expel the immigrants to. The Israelis had the right idea: pay a head tax to some local despot for every head he accepts, and don’t concern yourself too much with what happens to them after they get there.
4.   A horrific crackdown, completely discarding individual rights
    A simple military movement will not have much effect, because the organized Muslims can simply assassinate anyone who gets in their way. You would have to have a security apparatus akin to Saddam Hussein’s secret police, or Savak or the British Tans who controlled Ireland. The city would be treated as occupied territory. Unfortunately, the welfare and aid would probably continue under this scenario.
5.   Genocide
    There are so many other ways of handling this that genocide would be profoundly immoral.
    Afterword
    Those are all the possibilities I can think of. I don’t think there is a possibility of putting a lid on the situation and pretending it’s been settled. The Muslims feel its time to assert their control, so they’re now in the last stages of jihad and aren’t about to pull back for bribes or appeals to reason or civic pride.
 

What Mohammed? What Koran? What Mecca?

The following video is an excellent introduction by Dr. Jay Smith to the deconstruction by Western scholars of the Koran, Mohammed, and Islam itself. Using hermeneutics, textual analysis, archaeology, and other modern disciplines, he demonstrates that the three principal elements of Islam could not possibly be factually true in the way they are traditionally expounded:

1.   Mohammed                                                            
2.   The Koran
3.   Mecca
 

The archaeology and relevant historical documents simply do not support the traditions of Islam. Something happened in Arabia between the 7th and 10th centuries, but it certainly wasn’t what is described in the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira.

A large part of Dr. Smith’s analysis focuses on the qiblas in the oldest mosques, which did not point to Mecca, but to Petra, in what is now Jordan. He explains the likely significance of the switch from Petra to Mecca, which was prompted by the conflict between the Abbasid and Umayyad dynasties in the late first millennium. He also explains the political necessities that likely motivated Abd al-Malik to invent and backdate Mohammed, the Koran, and Islam itself:

Hat tip: acuara.

Surrender, High Treason and Language Fatigue

Surrender, High Treason and Language Fatigue

by Seneca III

German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier has declared Germany “is a nation of immigrants and will remain so”, asserting: “There are no half or whole Germans, no biological or ‘new’ Germans”…

“Racism and discrimination violate human dignity and damage our democracy,” he continued, claiming: “Immigration has taken place because we have repeatedly asked people to come — a situation which will continue to be true in the future.”…

“There are no Germans who are ‘on probation’ and having to earn their rights in society again and again because their [citizenship] could be revoked on the basis of alleged misconduct,” the president said, insisting that there are “no half or whole, no biological or ‘new’ Germans; there are no first— or second-class citizens, no right or wrong neighbours.”

From: Breitbart London — German President Declares There Are ‘No Native Germans, We Are a Nation of Immigrants’ by Virginia Hale, 25th August 2018

Perusing the global media on a daily basis, one becomes so weary of the endless iterations of the deconstructionist oxymora ‘Racism!’, ‘Hate Crime!’, ‘Human Dignity!’, ‘Discrimination!’, ‘White Privilege!’, ‘Cultural Appropriation!’, ‘Alleged Misconduct!’ ‘Xenophobia!’, ‘Islamophobia’ and the rest of the juvenile effluent spewing from the mouths of the butterfly horde of the emotionally incontinent and intellectually destitute.

That these disinformation peddlers should populate every nook and cranny of Europe’s Political Estate, its Enforcement Arms, Academia and what once was known as the Mainstream Media but is now nothing more than a set of comic books for the vicarious entertainment of the perceptually retarded should profoundly alarm all rational native citizens. Collectively, this assault on and insult to our intelligence is nothing less than the implantation of poisonous mind-worms, the spawn of a malignant ideological plague that eventually will leave the Black Death looking like a minor outbreak of infection.

In the UK the overriding problem is none of those spurious assertions; it is the current imbalance between population density, available space, sustainable resources and a commonality of purpose created by Europeans for their use according to their needs, not as a source of bottomless largesse for the human detritus of every failed, unrelentingly primitive society on planet Earth.

It comes down to understanding the reason why, five hundred years ago, Europe began to race ahead of the rest of the world in the creation of viable self-sustaining nation states, engineering, art and technology. The reason is that the intellectual development of Europe was far more advanced than that of the rest of the global population outside of Oriental Asia, and if we are to make it intact through these times of enforced reverse evolution we must recognize that reality.

Geography, history and chance conjoined to evolve the advanced humans of Europe; the lack of melanin in our skin is an evolutionary adaption to climate. It is not a creator of privilege, but simply a reaction to diminished levels of ultraviolet radiation. It is pointless castigating Europeans for being white; in all situations what goes on between the ears of Homo sapiens sapiens is the defining factor, not the hue of the dermal envelope that contains them.

Continue reading

Boris and the Burka

El Inglés uses the recent controversy over Boris Johnson’s remarks to introduce some little-known historical examples of Islamophobia.

Boris and the Burka

by El Inglés

Boris Johnson is at it again, it seems. Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the kitchen, Britain’s most/least-admired/hated (delete as appropriate) white, straight, male, privileged, politician has caused a stir by saying that Muslim women in burkas look like ‘bank-robbers’ and ‘letter-boxes.’

Given that no bank robber in the history of the world has ever actually looked like a letterbox, it seems clear that at least one of these two epithets must be inaccurate. Here, we will put that to one side and focus on the response to his comments.

One Lord Cooper, of whose existence I was unaware until fairly recently, communicated the following via Twitter in response to Boris’s comments:

The rottenness of Boris Johnson goes deeper even than his casual racism and his equally casual courting of fascism. He will advocate literally anything to play to the crowd of the moment.

Lord Cooper, which actually means Lord Barrelmaker, and is therefore a very weird title, had effectively accused Boris of being a fascist. Woop-de-doop. Another day, another fascist under the bed. So far, so original.

Let us ask, though: was the charge actually fair in this particular case? It is no secret that Boris is a gigantic, attention-seeking bellend. Could he also be a fascist?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Whatever exactly one thinks of Johnson’s comments, we need to be clear about one thing: anti-Muslim feeling has by no stretch of the imagination been limited to fascists, historically speaking. People of all different political backgrounds have despised Islam equally. Let us consider a few examples here.

Ho Chi Minh — Communist and Islamophobe Extraordinaire

Ho Chi Minh was a hugely talented Islamophobe. According to his unauthorized biography Not That Type of Ho…, Ho was arrested for attacking a group of Algerian men with a meat cleaver during his days in Paris in the 1920s. He was quoted in his police statement as having said:

Why so many ****ing Muslims in Paris? Why they park all over sidewalk so no can pass? Why they shout at me and lady friend when we walk down street? Next time I kill even more, ****ing hate ****ing Muslims.

That hard-left sentiments and anti-Muslim bigotry often walk hand-in-hand is made abundantly clear by this tale of borderline psychotic Islamophobia.

Jane Austen — World-famous Victorian novelist and grand wizard-level Islamophobe

Jane Austen’s position as a greatly-loved English novelist seemed unassailable until 2014, when previously unknown letters of hers exposed her as a raving anti-Islamic nutcase. The following is a particularly choice demonstration of her unrelenting anti-letterbox bigotry.

I happened upon a most unlovely bearded bollockhead of a Mohammedan a few short days ago, whereupon I did immediately start screeching the vilest of slurs at him: goat****er, sand monkey, and others that quite escape me at present but that yielded great pleasure at the time. I went home feeling rather pleased with myself and enjoyed a celebratory scone with extra jam. Goat****ers everywhere these days, darling, you simply can’t imagine.

Pancho Villa — Mexican revolutionary Islamophobe

Not only an unreconstructed sombrero-wearer and tequila-drinker, Pancho Villa was well ahead of the curve as an Islamophobe too. An undercover documentary released on YouTube in 2013 constituted incontrovertible evidence of this. At one point, a voice, subsequently identified as Villa’s, is heard to say:

You haf to remeber wid de Moosleems dat dey dreenk de blod of two infeedels every day jos’ to stay alive, ese. We talkin’ bout som baaad hombres, hermano. In Mexico, we shoot on sight, no questions asked. No Moosleems in Mexico ese, an’ we aim to keep it dat way….

Edward the Third — Launcher of Hundred Years’ War against the French, and precocious Islamophobe

Edward the Third, when not busy battling the Valois dynasty for the French throne, was a tireless opponent of the Islamic religion and its adherents. Historians recently unearthed one of his angrier diatribes about the Muslims swarming his capital city. We quote from a post he made on Facebook in 1363:

Continue reading

Is Partition a Viable Option?

UPDATE: I thank you all for an interesting range of comments; there’s plenty of good discussion to read. However, I think most of you may have missed my primary question, which is NOT about what is likely to happen, but whether partition is a viable option in Western Europe.

I don’t have any idea what is likely to happen. I just don’t think partition à la India or Gaza is a viable option. It’s not just that I don’t think it will happen, but that it can’t possibly work in the event that some misguided government (or supra-national power) attempts to implement it.

On last night’s post about the BBC, RonaldB left a comment concerning the possible eventual partition of Britain into separate Muslim and non-Muslim states. That got me thinking about the issue of partition, which has been discussed here in the past from time to time.

The most Islamized country in Western Europe is France, so the first of any partitions is likely to occur there. Marseille in particular comes to mind. But Britain, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany are close behind.

This was my comment in response:

One thing to bear in mind about partition: the new “stans” will consist primarily of urban residential areas, with no significant manufacturing plant or other productive assets. There will be no agricultural land, and the commercial base will be negligible. Unless the other side of the partition agrees to continue the delivery of jizya, the new emirates will be unable to support themselves. The kuffar would basically have to do what Israel does with Gaza: supply electricity and other necessities for free, or for a nominal charge.

I suppose a partition agreement could include the mandatory eviction of landowners from portions of prime arable land, which would then belong to the new entity. But even then, the new owners would hardly be likely to use it effectively — Muslims have a history of destroying agricultural land through bad husbandry; it seems to flow naturally from Islamic practices.

I don’t see any way in which partition could work for them. I think they will require full submission, with dhimmitude and/or enslavement for the former owners in perpetuity.

I can’t think of an outcome for all this that isn’t very, very ugly.

In recent times, we really only have three models for partition to draw on:

Continue reading

Pierre Manent: Beyond Radical Secularism

Thomas Bertonneau’s latest essay is a review of a recent book by the French political scientist Pierre Manent.

Pierre Manent: Beyond Radical Secularism — How France and the Christian West Should Respond to the Islamic Challenge

Reviewed by Thomas F. Bertonneau

Pierre Manent (born 1949), a former student of Raymond Aron’s who currently holds a professorship in political philosophy at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris, has over the years written a dozen books devoted to the discussion of the liberal-modern dispensation — its origins, its basic assumptions, and its limitations. Unsurprising in a student of Aron’s, Manent is moderately right-leaning, at least in a contemporary French context, in that he defends classical liberalism, disparages the authoritarian liberalism that has replaced it, advocates for the legitimacy of the nation-state, and turns his considerable skepticism on the European Union. Like a number of his contemporaries on the French Nouveau Droit, Manent insists that by the compelling force of their history and culture, France and its European sister nations are Christian nations and that they derive the fundamental decency of their political arrangements at least in part from a specifically Christian view of man and the world. In his expository style, Manent qualifies as quintessentially French: He argues his theses with thoroughness and subtlety and eschews any rhetoric of provocation. His prose gives an impression of coolness, calmness, and steadiness, qualities that incline a reader to concede the argument, if only while he is reading it.

In Beyond Radical Secularism — How France and the Christian West Should Respond to the Islamic Challenge (2016), Manent, compelled by the outbursts of Muslim violence in his country, turns his attention to the question of Islam and France. Not only in style, but in his approach to the Muslim question, Manent differs from others such as Guillaume Le Faye, Eric Zemmour, or Alain de Benoist. To their intransigency — which only responds to Muslim intransigency, after all — he proposes a type of meliorism. He is a measured optimist. His book, divided into twenty numbered chapters, none exceeding five or six pages, bears close inspection.

Even Manent’s title has a function in his argument. The first of its elements suggests a need to transcend radical secularism, the existence of such a necessity implying the inadequacy of radical secularism, whatever that might prove to be. Manent soon enough explains what it is, of course. In its second element, Manent’s title makes a reference to France and the Christian West, once again with an important implication namely that France and the Christian West differ in their nature from radical secularism and should perhaps not be identified with it. Contemporary Euro-skeptical discussion, furthermore, generally associates radicalism with Islam, but Manent’s title indirectly raises the question whether the Muslim problem might stem from a collision of two stubborn radicalisms — Islam itself and the postmodern, radically secular anti-nation. An important preliminary gesture of Manent’s argument entails his critique of the postmodern anti-nation, into which the France of Tradition has morphed. Despite Manent’s cool, calm, and collected manner, the reader will not miss the urgency and the frequent rapier-like penetration of that critique.

What is radical secularism? Manent defines radical secularism as the opinion, pervasive in modern Europe since the end of World War Two, that views religion merely and strictly “as an individual option, something private, a feeling that is finally incommunicable.” Manent argues, however, that this opinion is not native to those who hold it, but rather is the result of a propaganda regime in place for many decades. “The power of this perspective over us,” Manent writes, “is all the greater because it is essentially dictated by our political regime, and because we are good citizens.” It belongs to the bland conformism of the modern — or postmodern — person that he wishes to participate in such self-lauding phenomena as “enlightenment” and “progress.” Not even “the acts of war committed in early 2015 in Paris” seem to have shaken that conformism, which confirmed its blandness with a brief rush of emotion followed by a return of the characterless routine. France finds itself in a state of “paralysis,” Manent concludes. Its program, from the presidency down through the institutions right to the conformist mass of citizen-individuals, appears to be to see nothing and to do nothing. The Muslim problem exists, according to Manent, because the French state is weak and cannot produce the secularity, which would integrate Muslims, and which it declares as its program. Whereas “the State of the Third Republic had authority” and “represented that all held sacred,” as Manent argues; “our state [the Fifth Republic] has abandoned its representative ambition and pride, thus losing a good part of its legitimacy in the eyes of citizens.”

Manent continues: “Our state now obeys a principle of indeterminacy and dissipation.” Indeed, the French state, committed to the European Union, is programmatically self-minimizing. This trend attaches to another: The rising hostility to and elision of national culture and national identity. Manent points out that “the work of the state… has tended to deprive education of its content, or empty these contents of what I dare call their imperatively desirable character.” Under the Third Republic, pride in the achievement of one’s nation — or at the very least, the explicit acknowledgment of those achievements — expressed itself robustly and informed the national curriculum. The existing curriculum, in the name of multiculturalism, has elbowed the lesson in what it means to inherit the French nation out to the margin of the page or out of the textbook altogether. “How can we begin from the beginning,” Manent asks, “and gather children together in the competent practice of the French language, when we have done so much to strip this language of its ‘privilege?’” Given that secularity itself is such an empty concept, how might teachers teach secularism, the primary principle supposedly of the state — say, to Muslim students who crowd France’s urban schools? One can teach the heritage of a nation, but one finds himself hard-pressed to teach a self-evacuating notion. “Under the name of secularism we dream of a teaching without content that would effectively prepare children to be members of a formless society in which religions would be dissolved along with everything else.”

Continue reading

Social Justice: An Analysis (Part 2)

Below is the second part of a four-part guest essay by Richard Cocks about Social Justice. Previously: Part 1

Social Justice: An Analysis

Part 2
by Richard Cocks

Tough love vs. mother love

It would be a strange world in which absolute equality reigned. There would be no one to admire. To develop and get better in any regard; financially, musically, or athletically, would be impossible. Everyone would be exactly the same. It would be the least diverse world possible; a static, boring hellhole.

Thomas Sowell points out that even the same person is not equal to himself at different stages in his life.[1] An older child will be bigger, stronger, smarter and more capable than the younger version of himself. This is natural and inevitable. Workers are likely to be more productive and become more capable over time. Teenagers frequently start out at the minimum wage while most millionaires are over sixty. Very few people start on minimum wage and remain there as older adults. As more experience and seniority are accumulated there is the likelihood of promotions spanning decades. For this reason the same individual is likely to occupy multiple economic groups over a lifetime. And when people retire their income is likely to decrease.

Age differences between individuals, or the median age of ethnic groups, would alone be enough to generate economic inequalities.[2] The median age of American Jews is 52 while the median age of Hispanics is 40 and partly for that reason, Jews are on average better off than Hispanics as groups.[3]

In America, most millionaires and billionaires have not inherited their wealth but have earned it. The titans of the tech industry, for instance, are nearly all self-made men.

This obsession with leveling differences between people can be linked to the love a mother has for all her children — an unconditional love looking out for the lost lamb. Agape is the Greek name for compassionate love, and it is focused on acceptance and non-differentiation.

Eros is a more masculine-style tough-love aimed at looking out for the welfare of people by encouraging them to develop and get better; to promote hard work, discipline and sacrificing present pleasure for future gain. In principle anyone at all, no matter his talents and starting position, can get better. To truly care about someone is to wish him to improve.

In metaphysical or religious terms, in the realm of the Absolute there are no distinctions, all is one. Everything is equally divine and good: Agape. In the realm of the Relative, distinctions exist and the possibility of things being better or worse relative to other things or relative to themselves at different points in time comes into being: Eros.

Ken Wilber in A Brief History of Everything argues that real non-pathological love is a combination of Eros and Agape. The push to grow and develop combined with an acceptance of someone just as he is. Unfortunately, there is a tendency in popular culture at the moment to regard masculinity, and thus masculine virtues, as “toxic.” Thus, Eros-derived achievement and success is looked upon as suspicious and a reason for others to feel resentful.

“Social justice” is the pathological promotion of Agape with no Eros attached.[4] Superiority, and thus development, is then regarded as a sin.

Kindness and Charity

The idea of social justice is not a harmless mistake. The claim that all people who are less successful in a given economic system are the victims of discrimination and injustice divides the world into victims and victimizers; the oppressed and the oppressors. It is imagined that if it were not for these evil people, all people and groups would be at the same economic and social level. This kind of thinking has its modern roots in Marxism which divided the world into two groups; the bourgeoisie (capitalists) and the proletariat (workers). The exploiters were to be murdered and the exploited freed.

Marxism posits a cause for the proletariat’s suffering: they are being actively suppressed and kept down. This imagines the proletariat have all the ingredients for tremendous happiness and success but their fantastic potential is prevented from being actualized by nefarious others. In this way of thinking, it is not prosperity that needs to be explained, which is imagined to be the default and natural situation of man, but penury. Any failure to achieve economic wellbeing then must not be the fault of the individual but that of some external force, in exactly the same way the National Socialists claimed the Jews diabolically pulled the strings of international commerce.

Sowell argues that relative poverty and a hardscrabble existence have characterized humanity for most of its history. Prosperity is the anomaly, not the default condition. It is that which needs explaining. Japan studied the success of the Scots and English when they realized they were falling behind technologically, while the Scots copied the English to lift their own performance.

Failure is always easier than hard work and changing cultural attitudes. The majority of countries simply resent their higher performing minorities and seek to suppress them; for example, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia with regard to their ethnic Chinese minorities and Fiji against its ethnic Indians.

Economics is also not a zero-sum game. The standard of living of rich countries is high for everyone relative to poor countries. If wealth were attained by stealing it from the poor, the more wealth a country had, the poorer the masses would be. This is not the case.

Members of modern democracies tend to be fairly good at recognizing scapegoating when the targets are at the lower end of the success spectrum, such as the poor and the handicapped. However they tend to fail dismally to perceive scapegoating when the victim belongs to the higher-ups. Scapegoating the king or the chief is historically very common. The powerful person is already singled out by his office, and since he occupies a position of authority, he can be blamed when things have gone wrong. The individual can never succeed against the mob, so this person is as vulnerable as anyone else. When SJWs target the 1% this is classic scapegoating — the 99% against the 1%.

Continue reading

Allah Willing, America Will Be a Muslim Nation

The following video shows an imam named Sulaiman Jalloh preaching a sermon in a Virginia mosque (typing that last phrase makes me grit my teeth).

The only specific location mentioned in the notes to the video is the Dar Al Noor Mosque in Manassas. Fairfax County has long been a teeming nest of Islam, but in my experience from the last fifteen years or so, Manassas has been mainly Mexican (or Salvadoran, or other Latino points south). The last time I was there I didn’t notice any hijabs or men wearing beanies and dresses.

I guess Prince William County must be in the process of being absorbed by the Ummah, just like Fairfax and Arlington. And to think that my great-great-grandfather and great-great-granduncle fought for our sovereign Commonwealth on that blood-soaked battlefield just to the northwest of Manassas…

As Riddley Walker said (in the eponymous novel by Russell Hoban), upon seeing the “shyning of them broakin machines” at Fork Stoan: “O, what we ben! And what we come to!”

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.