Regular readers will know I live in the prole area of Moscow. As it turns out, my flat is ghetto as fuck. Drug overdose a few months ago. A murder a couple of days ago. 14/88 graffiti on the walls.
Meanwhile, on the same day, the Higher School of Economics – Russia’s top economics institution, located within walking distance of the Kremlin, and one of the few academic institutions in Russia that pays academics internationally respectable salaries – opened a Higher School of Equality. Yes, it’s exactly what you’re expecting: “Our organization does scientific and educational work in the spheres of gender and feminism, sexuality, queer culture, and other investigations.”
There is no escape from the poz anywhere on the face of the planet, and the alternatives aren’t exactly appetizing either.
Why is this crap spreading to Russia? I can understand how there’s a certain amount of “antiracism” given the needs of holding together a multiethnic and multireligious state, the legacy of Soviet antifascism, friendship of peoples etc. But who’s pushing for this subversive gender nonsense and homo-lobbyism? This must have been imported from the West.
Ramzan Kadyrov, you are our last hope.
“Gender nonsense ” has no chance for success in Russia. Last year, at my University,students of one group should to hold debate (to develop public speaking skills). The theme of the debate the students had to choose.
In the end, the topic of debate was selected
“Should the state spend public money on University education for girls?”.
Girls (half the group) were trying to prove that they are as smart as boys, while boys argued that girls are by nature not capable for science.
That is, “Gender nonsense ” are out of date for the population of Russia (otherwise similar comic discussion would be impossible)
This is unwarranted optimism. Nobody believed in such nonsense in the US or the UK a hundred years ago. Yet here we are. In Hungary things have changed a lot in the last twenty years. Now there is a sizeable minority among the learned classes believing all or most of the gender stupidity as well as anti-racism. This despite Orbán ruling for eleven of the last twenty-seven years (and another nominally conservative government for another four). One problem is that the historical experience has always been that the West has always won despite its seeming decadence and weaknesses. So many people think that the more decadent and decaying the West is, the more likely it is to win.
I know Russia has problems (higher murder rates, abortions, drugs).
But in some other ways they are improving.
The Liberal/”Progressive” virus is spreading, almost everywhere.
Even in Poland it gained strength. At least 1/4 is now like this in some form. They still may hold to Catholic title, but younger generations are have higher percent in support of abortions, homo marriage, and marijuana.
Italy, Ireland, etc are falling slowly too. Forget the party in charge, look at the polls and how people see things.
I have no clue how to stop this.
What I know is that Europe needs to improve on older morals and increase fertility rates.
How? Several theories, but little is working.
“Liberalism”, for lack of a better term, needs to be treated by the state as a dangerous, subversive pestilence. To advocate for “liberalism” should be considered sedition and lead to criminal indictment, trial, and execution. The security services should have their own Inquisition dedicated to rooting out and destroying this virus once and for all.
Non-Western states that wish to escape infection need to prohibit their nationals from studying abroad (possible exception for STEM subjects), ban foreign NGOs entirely, prohibit the import of Western media, and ensure that national organizations are dominant in the IT sector.
In our own Western lands it is increasingly likely that we’ll have to fight a civil war to put a stop to this.
All this liberalism “genderqueer” nonsense is a kind of cancer. Unless Russia has a good method of chemotherapy to remove these kinds of people from their academia, no matter how strong and healthy the body is, they will eventually take over.
The Ramzan solution, or something like that, is what is needed.
identity politics and the idea that various groups oppress various other groups qua members of those groups, i.e. over and above the relation of the individual to the means of production is a Marxian heresy. It’s idealism all the way. Marxism predicted the withering away of the family but it never said TPTB must help bringing about that state of affairs along. Let’s combat CultMarx idiocy by embracing true Marxism™.
I agree with reiner tor that you might be too optimistic. If someone had told Western Europeans in the early 1980s that eventually there would be “marriage” (including rights of adoption) for homosexuals and that something as degenerate as transgenderism would be pushed as a major civil rights issue, most people would have thought that insane. Yet it did happen (similarly with mass immigration of non-Europeans).
If Russians can learn anything from the Western experience, it is that such subversive trends must be crushed mercilessly before their activists can infiltrate institutions.
Despite some green shoots (Trump, AfD, etc.), the problem will continue to get worse for the foreseeable future.
Next they will attempt to normalize pedophilia.
Best thing is to make them abide by their BS. Don’t let them check out of the larger society. Want moar immigrants? There ya go, tram line from the ghetto to your gated community, bam! Want sex-ed in schools? All private schools will have to teach the most explicitly crude and biologistic sex-ed. Etc.
Actually the Greens and other leftie subversives already tried that in Germany in the late 1970s and 1980s. Daniel Cohn-Bendit wrote about how great it felt when children fondled his genitalia and published a magazine where other authors wrote similarly perverse things. And there were pressure groups within the Greens until the late 1980s to decriminalize “consensual” sexual relationships between adults and children.
Is nowadays of course explained away as “times were different back then, we didn’t know better”. I’m not sure something like this will return (maybe that would finally be a step too far?), but one probably can’t exclude the possibility either.
The homos got what they wanted and backstabbed the pedos once they no longer had any need for their solidarity.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/gay-activists-in-germany-silent-on-alliance-with-pedophiles-in-1980s-a-919119.html
A non-trivial fraction of homos are pedos.
Based on my calculations homosexuals are seventeen times more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals are.
If not pedophilia, what else will they choose to normalize next? Bestiality?
Polygamy would be more likely imo (not just the of the “one man, several wives” type, but all manner of relationships with several partners involved…wouldn’t surprise me if there was a push to give legal recognition to that).
Oh I agree with you that pedophilia is up next. Bestiality is probably too niche to hold much interest.
Already a thing: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ppxajb/a-child-in-the-netherlands-is-going-to-have-five-parents-876
Pretty amusing that it is going to be pushed by GoodWhite liberals but it will be high-status Muslims and ultra-patriarchal millionaires who will benefit most.
Yes, the Greens’ homo lobby in Germany is pushing for something similar, obviously with the intention of delegitimating and destroying traditional family structures.
Once you let the state decide what a marriage is – this is inevitable because handed over legitimizing force to someone else:
“Mainstream Muslim clerics almost universally see the inheritance rules as enshrined in the Quran, Islam’s holy book, and consider the rules on marriage to be equally unquestionable in Islamic law.
The country’s leading imams and theologians have issued a statement denouncing the president’s proposals as a ‘flagrant violation of the precepts’ of Islam.”
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/09/tunisia-lifts-ban-muslim-women-marrying-muslims-170914154657961.html
A nikah between a non-Muslim man and a Muslim woman is as legitimate as her marrying her father. You gotta put your foot down. The state can say anything, but if no one is officiating the weddings or giving it legitimacy – well, it’s just fornication with a government issued license that isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
Problem in the West is that; 1) the churches don’t necessarily have enough backing to be the counter-force and 2) it’s not clear they want to put their foot down rather than get their foot in the door.
I thought maybe Buddhism was going to hold the line, but then someone sent me this:
https://twitter.com/DalaiLama/status/908988013249691648
I hope the Orthodox Church keeps it together.
Peace.
I disagree and have little sympathy for the patriarchalic understanding of marriage you seem to advocate (much of modern feminism with its hatred of men may be demented, but this whole obsession about controlling “your” women is rather creepy imo, it’s the first step on a road that can lead to regarding “honor killings” as legitimate). And the issue isn’t one of religion/irreligion. Much of the crap the degenerate left is pushing nowadays is anti-scientific imo and can easily be rejected on secular grounds (it helps though if one also rejects the concept of “human rights” which has become a quasi-religion in today’s West). One doesn’t need to believe in any religious dogma to regard it as grotesque when it’s claimed that there are no real biological sex differences, or that mentally disturbed trans freaks with male genitalia are really women.
But some European states have 60-70% divorce rate. I think it’s pretty obvious that the traditional family structure is not suitable for western socioeconomic conditions these days (emancipation of women, the welfare state).
I claim: at this point, family is just an atavistic ritual, with some minor legal ramifications. I read a couple of days ago about some middle-aged Italian woman marrying herself. Who cares.
Family is the basic building block of society, anybody who cares about the future of his own society must be worried about the trends in Western Europe. And while families can be oppressive, without a family you’re totally at the mercy of the state (and that’s of course why those pursuing utopian projects want to destroy the family).
Hey G_R,
Trust me – do a survey of the Muslim world – there is plenty of support from Muslim women about controlling the choices of other Muslim women. In fact, the person who first raised the alarm about this in my circle is a Muslim woman – she was quite happy the ulema were putting the smack down and holding the line on this nonsense. I’d also say you get a fairly good number of women in the West being opposed to other women being able to walk around topless – especially the ones it wouldn’t favor.
The sacred law considers “honor killings” as legitimate as Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men – that’s the beauty of having principles you can keep referring back to.
That’s cool – when I see a serious atheist/agnostic push back, I’ll definitely give credit where it’s due. As of now, this is a fairly marginal position in those circles. Milo just got “married” to a man, a Black man…wonder if Douglas Murray is planning to tie the knot.
Peace.
Hey Mao,
Indeed – that seems to be the attitude in Sweden these days. Nobody even cares to do the official ceremony. Apparently you just slide into “marriage” after a certain time of living together. At least that is what my mother-in-law reported after a recent trip.
I think there would have been more of a fight put up if it was considered something sacred to hold onto. Definitely the welfare state has a big hand in it – it is the third partner in each marriage.
Peace.
Logically, the basic unit of a liberal-capitalist society is the individual, and I don’t think there’s any way around it. The Creator of liberal capitalism endowed everyone equally (only the men first, yes, but later he changed his mind) with unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That’s where the source of delegitimation and destruction of the traditional family structure lies, I think.
Bing-frinkin’-O! That’s why hyper-individualism is encouraged and why it’s so difficult to stem the tide; everyone has their own decadence that they want catered.
Read the early dystopian novels like 1984, Brave New World, etc. – people saw this coming.
Peace.
How to get back traditinoal values…
Through economic means, both parents shouldnt work 8 hrs.
Globalizatoin has outsourced jobs, ruined middle class, etc.
Less feminism, ban or heavily limit porn.
Maybe technology has reduced want for children. (internet sitting for hours, facebooks, etc).
Well, in African countries where they customarily mutilate women’s genitalia older women often take part in those procedures (maybe they enjoy putting others through the misery they had to endure themselves?)…I don’t regard women’s complicity in customs harmful to other women as a valid argument.
And where in Western countries have you seen women walking around topless in public spaces? Maybe on a beach, but elsewhere? There are decency laws against that, pretending otherwise is just hyperbole.
A lot of your dumber co-religionists obviously don’t know that. And while I suppose you’re correct that “honor” killings aren’t Islamic in a narrow sense, the general spirit of your views (a need to control “your” women for reasons of group cohesion) can lead to such practices being regarded as legitimate.
Most atheists aren’t homosexual journalists, your examples are atypical.
Quite possibly so, I’m not necessarily in favour of a liberal-capitalist society…the question just is if there are viable alternatives.
That’s nice – based on what grounds? Do they not have a voice? Do mothers not set the bedrock of culture? But you are comparing genital mutilation to being able to interdict a bad marriage choice by a female in a case that has court review – completely different things. To loop them together as “harmful” is hyperbole. I can guarantee you there are men in the West that wish they could legally get rid of their daughter’s poor choice in husband or boyfriend – my Dad’s neighbor (an old Irish guy) had nothing but complaints about every single idiot his daughter has been with.
That’s what I’m talking about – and those decency laws against topless women have plenty of support from other women in society.
Yup – that’s the problem – big problem.
No – the general spirit of our views is that you submit to the will of God – you don’t get to come up with the rules and then come up with nonsense justifications for your past actions. there is nothing macho about disobeying God or oppressing his hand-maidens. The sacred law gives you legal means to interdict the relationship – there is no grounds to go around it because your ego’s throwing a tantrum because of “muh honor”.
This is true, but the correlation between homosexuality and atheism is very, very solid.
Peace.
And – of course – Neitzche…
“Witness modern marriage. All rationality has clearly vanished from modern marriage; yet that is no objection to marriage, but to modernity. The rationality of marriage – that lay in the husband’s sole juridical responsibility, which gave marriage a center of gravity, while today it limps on both legs. The rationality of marriage – that lay in its indissolubility in principle, which lent it an accent that could be heard above the accident of feeling, passion, and what is merely momentary. It also lay in the family’s responsibility for the choice of a spouse.
With the growing indulgence of love matches, the very foundation of marriage has been eliminated, that which alone makes an institution of it. Never, absolutely never, can an institution be founded on an idiosyncrasy; one cannot, as I have said, found marriage on “love” – it can be founded on the sex drive, on the property drive (wife and child as property), on the drive to dominate, which continually organizes for itself the smallest structure of domination, the family, and which needs children and heirs to hold fast – physiologically too – to an attained measure of power, influence, and wealth, in order to prepare for long-range tasks, for a solidarity of instinct between the centuries. Marriage as an institution involves the affirmation of the largest and most enduring form of organization: when society cannot affirm itself as a whole, down to the most distant generations, then marriage has altogether no meaning. Modern marriage has lost its meaning – consequently one abolishes it.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2006/04/nietzsche-and-marriage/235592/
If he disapproves of his daughter’s choices, he can disown and disinherit her. I disagree with the view that there should be a state-backed legal system controlling people’s marital choices (at least regarding heterosexual unions, I don’t accept the argument that there is a right to have homosexual relations legally recognized).
Yes, but since I don’t believe Islam is God’s revealed truth for mankind, I obviously can’t agree; discussion on this matter is probably not very productive.
Are there studies confirming that this is true globally? Casual googling just produced that homosexuals in the US are more atheist than average, but this could be due to America’s culture wars.
Phrased as a correlation, I have no idea. In most of the world taking such a survey would be pointless anyway. But it stands to reason people who don’t regard sodomy as a mortal sin are at least slightly more likely to commit it– though nevertheless it appears to be fairly common in many parts of the Muslim world.
On any serious subject Nietzsche though a profound philosopher is not the place to go. Particularly on subjects relating to ethics as he saw these as a branch of aesthetics.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum.html
Sure – I certainly don’t take him as a foundation for my ethics – but from the perspective of someone without a transcendent spiritual framework he nailed a heck of a lot of things on the head. He was asking the deep questions and forcing people to consider; if you get rid of this current framework, what do you replace it with and how do you justify its foundations. His predictive capabilities were extremely insightful.
Peace.
Hey G_R,
This is a very interesting response. The Shariah protects inheritance rights – they are fixed and cannot be messed with. The daughter can’t lose her defined portion* – this would be considered oppression from the father and robbing his daughter of her rights under the sacred law; it seems oppression is in the eye of the beholder, interesting no?
You will lose this argument every time – every time. Can granddaughters marry their grandfathers? Can brothers marry their sisters? If not, why not? What if they first get their tubes tied?
There is a reason why this argument is going only one direction in the West (and in such a short time). It robbed itself of any ammunition to be able to formulate a reasonable response.
No doubt. first things first – belief and conviction in the source and legitimacy of the law must precede the obedience to the law. Otherwise it leads to; a) hypocrisy or b) massive cognitive dissonance.
I was basing my statement on something Mr. Karlin actually posted a little while ago. From religious anthropologist Edward Dutton in his examination of atheism and its ties to self-destructive behavior patterns:
https://youtu.be/WKl9H037C1k?t=13m8s
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-family/atheist/views-about-homosexuality/
Due to culture wars? Possibly – you mean that’s not going on in Europe? But as far as global stats? Hmmm – good question.
Peace.
*The only thing I know that breaks this rule is if the child commits patricide, then inheritance rights are blocked – for obvious reasons.
Mao did try that. Doesn’t work.
At the end of the day, if you don’t have a mechanism to control people from going out of line, then the increasing poz is inevitable. I’ve read and read and I don’t think I can come to any other conclusion except that you really do have to treat certain deviations as cancer and be able to cut it off. If you don’t, then it’ll spread in the society of your choice.
No, not like in the US. The US is uniquely horrible with its retarded culture wars…unfortunately many subversive ideas from the US eventually cross the Atlantic (because there are so many America-worshipping Quislings in Europe), but in most European countries there’s nothing directly comparable to America’s culture wars. I know it’s difficult for many Americans to imagine, but not everyone thinks disputes about wedding cakes for homos are the most important issue ever. The fault lines in Europe are different. America isn’t the world.
As for atheism and self-destructive behaviour patterns, hmm, of course possible (though I want to note that the PEW poll you cited is merely about acceptance of homos…presumably most of the atheists questioned aren’t interested in homosex themselves). I’d never claim that atheism is going to make one happy, it’s a rather bleak world view all things considered and may lead to despair. However that line of argument “Society will collapse without belief in God’s laws, and atheists are sad people without values who will self-destruct” has never been convincing to me. Ultimately the issue is about claims to revealed truth (at least regarding Judaism, Christianity, Islam, it may be different with other religious systems), and you can’t (or shouldn’t be able to) persuade people to believe in that because it’s supposedly socially useful. Even a comforting fiction is still fiction. If you really wanted to persuade an unbeliever you’d have to try other arguments (like Christians traditionally claimed the truth of their faith was proven by Old testament prophecies…I don’t regard those arguments as convincing either, but at least they got closer to the core of the issue).
Regarding marriage, I obviously wasn’t thinking of legal recognition of incest, I meant to say that I don’t believe the state should have the power to restrict marriage for religious or racial reasons.
I don’t really disagree in principle, it’s just the question 1) which kind of deviations, 2.) and how to cut them off. These aren’t exactly easy questions imo.
It sounds like you don’t read much Christian apologetic. Which isn’t a problem, until you want to pass judgment on Christian apologetic.
And what exactly is wrong about my statement? Do you want to tell me Christians didn’t traditionally claim that several Old testament prophecies referred to Christ (note: I didn’t write it was the only argument, but for much of Christianity’s history it certainly was a very important one)?
Obviously.
So do several Sybilline prophecies and an eclogue of Virgil, if you’re into that sort of thing. It’s all in the interpretation; again obviously, interpreting OT from a Christian viewpoint yields predictions of Christ. Which (OT, not Sybil) were important arguments in Christ’s lifetime and to the Jews around that time– look, here’s the Messiah you’ve been waiting for! Not such a great argument for Romans or Germans, hence not so much used in that case.
Now that I have your attention, do you? I don’t read German– are there German works putting forth this point of view?
Here is a random work of apologetic in English: http://www.cin.org/liter/belief0.html .
As far as I know Christians generally follow, or ought to, the advice of St. Thomas Aquinas: For it would be useless to quote passages of Scripture against those who do not accept this authority. (De rat. fid.)
Cut off by the edit window, but I was going to add– many Romans at that time had a considerable interest in things Judaic, particularly as the prophets sounded more like the reasonings of the philosophers than anything pagan did.
Hey G_R,
I love America, but she is spreading quite a bit of stupidity all over the place. It’s a shame really.
I totally agree here. As I said before, belief definitely should precede acting upon the guidelines – actions follow conviction. You can’t simply act according to a set of beliefs you don’t really believe in – that is simply incoherent – one can’t trick God. Though I would posit that a religion that proves itself socially useful definitely has a leg up in claiming Divine authorship, no? The inverse of that obviously doesn’t make sense.
OK – but you would block incestuous relationships which – once children are removed from the picture – really don’t have any rational reason to be blocked. My point was that everyone has their specific deviations that they are willing to block – we’re just differing on the details. Interestingly, the Muslim scholars were traditionally only interested in protecting the integrity of marriage within Islam – they actually didn’t care if others were marrying their siblings/parents:
“This type of marriage, called xvetodah marriage in Pahlevi Persian, included brother/sister, father/daughter and mother/son couplings and served to make procreation possible in unusual circumstances. It continued to be permissible in Zoroastrianism up through the 1400’s (after which it was limited to cousin marriage)….Xvetodah marriage was most probably very rare, but it left a strong impression on Muslim scholars. It proved an extreme case for testing their principles of law governing non-Muslim minorities. One school of thought (represented by one opinion of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal) held that this should not be permitted for Zoroastrians, citing a 643 CE ruling of the caliph Umar that ‘all those married to mahrams among the Zoroastrians must be separated.’ The majority opinion, however, allowed xvetodah marriage as long as Zoroastrians did not come to Muslim courts for this type of marriage to be adjudicated (this was the opinion of the Shafi’i, Hanafi and Hanbali schools).
http://almadinainstitute.org/blog/incest-widow-burning-how-much-can-muslims-stomach/
Peace.
Sorry, I’m watching the thread for a reply to me, but I couldn’t resist– it would not be too absurd, were certain internet Muslims correct about His nature– He has no love or providential concern for humanity. Again, sorry for that, which is a cheap hit, but as long as we’re apparently talking about weak reasons for religions … I actually had something interesting to say but can’t remember it– should probably go to sleep.
This is typical of Muslim law which was formulated under circumstances of conquest, as Spain had at one point a lex Visigothorum and a lex Romanorum (or was it Hispaniorum? I can’t remember)– but the point stands.
an extreme case
How would they have dealt with human sacrifice? Of children*?
*A separate problem for other than sentimental reasons.
Seems doubtful to me it can be separated that cleanly. Admittedly I can’t claim to have read more than very small bits and pieces of patristics, but in the secondary literature I’ve read the OT prophecies supposedly referring to Christ are presented as having been a main argument of Christian apologetics until at least the 18th century. In the same spirit, some of the medieval texts I actually have read myself are full of constant references to OT figures, interpreted as prefigurations of Christ (e.g. “Christ, the true priest and king, the Melchisedek”, “Christ, the true David” etc.).
Yes, but that’s a 20th century work. Even if Ronald Knox rejected historical criticism of the Bible, his work couldn’t be unaffected by it to some extent. I’m not sure it can be considered as representative of pre-modern Christian thought.
Anyway, I don’t pretend that my knowledge of Christianity is perfect, far from it.
I definitely wouldn’t grant incestuous relationships any legal recognition whatsoever. The question whether the participants should always be punished however isn’t that easy to answer imo. There was a case in Germany a few years ago of a brother and sister who had been separated as very young children (or had never grown up together at all, don’t know the details), then accidentally met as adults – and began a sexual relationship. They were even irresponsible enough to have several children (who were at least mildly retarded as a consequence of their parents’ consanguinity). The man was eventually sentenced to a prison sentence. Obviously pretty sick and perverse, but I have to admit I’m not entirely sure how society should deal with such cases.
But I don’t really see any equivalency with the law you mentioned prohibiting Muslim women from marrying non-Muslim men, that’s a much more artificial restriction imo than taboos about incest. That’s something we just have to disagree about.
I hate to sound like Corvinus, but you made a claim…
Yes, these are not apologetic works. See the Aquinas quotation. The pslams and so on are very much part of the Christian religion.
What?
On the contrary, it is a divine restriction.
But anyway, you do believe in the natural law, and that the natural law forbids incestuous unions. That’s a step forward, I guess.
I’m going to sleep now, will revisit this later.
But here is an actual example of medieval apologetic: http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles.htm .
I must admit I haven’t read it through.
I must admit I haven’t read it through., but there is a very long lead-up before much actual Scripture is brought up.
Definitely sleeping now.
I don’t know what Ronald Knox’s position on these issues was (and I don’t care to find out tbh, read some of the piece you linked to, his style seemed insufferably pompous to me)…I got the impression from the piece you linked to that he was skeptical about some of the claims of historical criticism of the Bible (e.g. the dating of the Pentateuch, the origins of monotheism in ancient Israel). It doesn’t matter, my point was that I doubt a 20th century Englishman like Knox will have used the same type of arguments as the Church fathers or medieval Christians (which I was primarily thinking about in my original comment).
I’m not referring to the Psalms, but to medieval treatises about the role of the church in the world etc. Ok, not exactly apologetics, but my point about constant references to OT figures as prefigurations of Christ still stands (which maybe isn’t exactly the same as the supposed OT prophecies referring to Christ like in Isaiah, but close enough in spirit imo).
And sorry, I’m not going to make an effort to look for citations and sources about this matter. I would have thought it uncontroversial to state that supposed OT prophecies were an important argument for Christianity’s truth for a long time. If I’m wrong about it, sorry. But it was tangential to the main point of my original post anyway.
Ok, thanks, I might actually have a look at that.
I write this from a semi-conscious state, but I meant to append it to the last comment. Here is Utopia on how sermons would be expected to be preached to pagans; it is a satirical piece of writing, but this is mentioned only in the least passing, and is not especially funny, so can, I suppose, be taken as representative.
This is beginning to be a rabbit hole, and I am forgetting the original argument …
Melchizedek, etc. is part of ordination and other rites. Psalm 109 or 110, don’t remember which. David is imputed author of psalms, some of which are spoken in pers. X.
Were you brought up Cath. or Prot.? Two different discussions depending on answer. I assumed tbh in the beginning you meant people actually tried to convince you in this manner … if not this is even more of a rabbit hoe.
No, I actually doubt this sort of argument would be that common today (don’t want to open another discussion, but as I understand it, the supposed prophecies from the OT relating to Christ are rather problematic, and only work as references to Christ when one does violence to their original context).
Anyway, my point in my original post was merely that utilitarian arguments for Christianity (or Islam) along the lines of “Religion is necessary for society” miss the point.
The green shoots that I am seeing are actually completely different.
I’m newly encountering some very happy and balanced Christians that are sailing right past all this junk.
I suppose that it is not really surprising, considering that early Christianity grew out the same ambience of sleaze, decadence and corruption (late Imperial Roman pagan version), that in fact acted as a necessary fertilizer for the Christian plant.
An interesting but tough read is Robin Lane Fox’s “Pagans and Christians”.
https://www.amazon.com/PAGANS-CHRISTIANS-Robin-Lane-Fox/dp/0394554957/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1508058718&sr=8-1&keywords=pagans+and+christians
O dear internet, is there no pathology you won’t give a loud megaphone to? This doesn’t surprise me much, there are certain internet Muslims that think I’m not a Muslim because I belong to a Sufi order – que sera, sera.
Definitely partially true – especially dealing with the early caliphs. I would add that Islamic law on this subject also derives from the interactions of the Prophet (pbuh) with other religious communities during peace time; Jews of Madinah, Christians of Najran, records of the Sahifah of Madinah, etc.
The only instance that I know of when this happened historically was what was recorded about Egypt, when the Nile was under sever drought. Some Egyptians were going to sacrifice a virgin girl as their normal way of appeasing the Nile to get it to flow again. The caliph Umar (ra) stopped them from this, even though they were upset about it. The only thing I do not know is whether the record of this event is strong enough to derive a proof from or whether Muslims ever came across this kind of practice again. In the article I cited, there is mention of the Mughals allowed sati, but it mentions that it was on grounds that the Hindu widow was willingly throwing herself onto the funeral pyre.
Peace.
Hey G_R,
I agree – it’s definitely not equivalent. For example, a man can easily convert and the restriction drops immediately. That is obviously not the case for incest. My point was, many people will still consider certain actions that are consensual to be abominable and restrict them, even when any underlying rational reasons are removed (like the problem of children). I mean, if both people agree to say, undergo surgery to prevent any children, what remains other than the “eewww” factor. That even exists with a 20 year old man from marrying an 80 year old woman, but hey – it’s their thing.
For the record, Muslim men are also restricted from marrying certain women; while Jews and Christian women are exceptions to the rule – all others are not an option. These restrictions on religious mixing/dilution is important when religion is the most important in society. I definitely don’t expect a secular society to evaluate things on the same wavelength.
Peace.
@Anatoly:
Different topic: Did Navalny call Georgians cockroaches or somesuch? Does he have similarly cute names for other, as the new German term goes, Non-BioRussians?
This is good – duck and cover and disengage (homeschool your kids, etc.) until the disaster abates. This may just work if the liberal Left leaves feels they’ve won enough victories to leave people alone. Sure, you might be ridiculed or called backwards, etc. but that’s part of the sacrifice.
However, if they are not yet appeased until all opposition is crushed underfoot, then this is just living on borrowed time.
Peace.
Decadent Ancient Rome certainly saw Christianity as a threat. Many Christians were martyred for their faith – but according to Robin Lane Fox – who probably knows more about this than anyone, their community gained a general respect for their high ethical standards, reliability and respectful lives.
Apparently, the persecution only strengthened their faith, so they weren’t really living on borrowed time, they were dealing with eternity. And it was Christianity that survived, not paganism after the conversion of Emperor Constantine.
Hey Miro,
Excellent points! Indeed, sticking to one’s principles and beliefs and setting out an exemplary character can be a beacon of hope in the midst of an enveloping darkness. I hope Christians can help turn the tide by living by their earliest examples.
Peace.
Well, I wouldn’t say they miss the point precisely, so much as that they make a different and somewhat related point.
I can actually go into the Melchizedek thing in great detail if you want me to, but doubt you do. But the basic point is that Christ is a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek because he offers bread and wine, rather than after the order of Aaron who sacrificed animals.
I’d be interested in Talha’s input on any of this, obviously not so much the specific points so much as the general idea of symbolic prefiguration and the other things we’ve brought up.
All good arguments for civilizations having their own space.
We shouldn’t lecture Muslims on their mores, but we should keep them out of our countries.
I can’t think of a country, not even Israel, where Christians are a criminal underclass, like Muslims in the West.
Hey Talha,
Is this a Sufi thing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxSWVkPfVc8
Hey jinmyriddle,
There is actually a very simple solution to this problem; stop coddling criminal Muslims or treating them with kid gloves. Go shariah on them – no complaints from me.
You ever been camping? Seen signs that say “Don’t feed the bears”? Are those signs for the benefit of the bears or people?
Peace.
Why so many police on Mayakovskaya Ploschad on Saturday? There was no political demo that I could discover. They had riot helmets and clubs but no shields or boady armour?
Doesn’t the existence of this school violate the law against homosexual propaganda that was passed in Russia a few years back?
Hey Mao,
Yes – for the Qadiri order; they do a lot of out loud dhikr (sometimes involving movement).
Here’s a group dhikr from the Sudan (looks like a European brother has a front row spot):
https://youtu.be/DuSO6a1MaEE
The order I belong to is very low key; our practice is sitting in circles (or alone) silently and concentrating on listening to the heart. From a distance you couldn’t tell the difference between us and a gathering of Buddhist monks, other than the clothing.
Peace.
Or, just not let them come here. Fewer Muslims, fewer problems.
Sure, just different problems. I have no problem with the West blocking Muslim immigration; their borders, their call.
With the way some Muslims are acting in the West – abusing the freedom that they have and losing their religion along the way – you might be doing many of them a huge favor by shipping them back to Muslim lands where the social and legal restrictions will keep them in check. That is better for their afterlife in the long run if they are not spiritually mature enough to handle life here.
Peace.
Societies and cultures reflect the populations that gave rise to them.
Britain, Canada, the USA etc reflect the high mean-IQ, high trust, law-based, non-clannish, non-cousin-marrying, Anglo-Saxon Protestant founding population.
Some other peoples can (on average) function well in these societies, but Muslims (on average) cannot.
The lower IQ and clannishness engendered by Islam and cousin-marriage mean that they require stricter guidance.
Also, Islam (like Judaism) has a profound difference in attitudes toward the in-group and out-group (for example, in Shariah the word of non-Muslim carries less weight, they are subject to different taxes etc). Unlike, Judaism, it is also a proselytizing religion. A civic identity is impossible for them. Hence, out-groups have to protect themselves from Muslims, and conflict is inevitable.
The only way to avoid conflict is separation.
Hey jimmyriddle,
I already agreed that Western countries have every right to restrict immigration anyway they want.
No – Islam covers a whole host of varying peoples – some of them very clannish and some of them not. Some marry their cousins like crazy and some do not. Plenty of Muslim countries have higher average intelligence than, say, Latin America which are mostly Christians. And, to this day, I’ve never met a convert that had their intelligence magically decline or who was pining to marry their cousin.
There was a sale on plums at my supermarket. Instead of throwing a bunch of them in my basket in hopes the “average plum” came out in my favor, I examined each one before selecting it. If the purpose one has in mind is to increase the average IQ of a nation, this can be easily accomplished even from Muslim countries; one simply drafts a policy under which all applicants from Muslim countries have to pass a certain level of IQ and have to prove that they have no cousin marriage within their past three generations. People want to come to the West, so the West can afford to be selective.
Now I have noticed that the situation in the US is different than much of Europe – they seem to be at par with (or just slightly doing better than) Catholics and the average as far as household income:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
So it seems the kinds of Muslims that came here were at least on par with the rest of the population. Europe seems to have a different situation on its hands. But one has too ask, what were the post-colonial immigration policies? From what I’ve read, they wanted a bunch of cheap labor from across the Muslim world. OK – so they got it. Now it seems obtuse to complain about the results inasmuch as it’s silly to buy a cart horse and complain that it doesn’t breed derby winners.
Maybe they should have done what the Gulf countries do (in a more humane way, of course) where you have people come over for work for a given time and then send them back to their original countries after a couple of decades.
No doubt about this – as I’ve explained before, it establishes a spiritual brotherhood based on common belief and moral framework. Irrespective of race, language, etc. Anyone’s welcome to join. But why should we treat our spiritual brothers (with whom we pray, fast etc. together and hope to be with in the afterlife) exactly the same as everyone else? A white guy who is a Muslim is closer to me than some Pakistani Christian or Atheist – even though he may be closer to me genetically. That is our way of prioritizing relationships – other people have different ways. Do you treat your brothers the same as your cousins or your cousins the same as a random guy on the street?
Actually, depending on the circumstance it can carry the same weight to no weight at all. Depends on what’s being discussed.
You do know all four schools agree jizya can be levied at the same rate as zakat, right? But in theory sure, they can pay more or less tax than a Muslim – depending on circumstance; for instance, a non-Muslim female has zero tax liability unless she owns cultivatable land. Muslim females still owe zakat irrespective of land ownership.
If you say so. I don’t see why that is necessarily the case, but if you say that “civic” means we treat non-Muslims exactly the same as Muslims – then it’s not going to happen. I just mentioned earlier that, for instance, we will stop them from marrying Muslim women.
I’m a big fan of the millet system myself. Nebraska’s OK, Arizona more reasonable, Hawaii is better.
You’ve made some fairly concise and reasonable arguments about Muslim immigration (and possibly citizenship), have you thought about sending them to your representative(s)? That’s the only way these will get actionable.
Peace.
Hola Senor,
Sure, no problems there; that the previous revelations spoke of later prophets to come. Of course our interpretation may be different. Also, it is always difficult from the Muslim perspective since we aren’t really sure about the complete veracity of the entire texts (OT and NT) in the first place.
As far as an argument for a religion from a utilitarian perspective; well, depends on who one is talking to honestly. Convinces some, doesn’t convince others. I have met many converts and their reasons for converting have been extremely varied. One that stands out was the uncle of one of my friends during university time. Apparently he worked at a funeral home and used to see how much grief (and infighting) families would go through during the time of burying their deceased and the financial hardship, etc. When he learned about the mandated simplicity of the Muslim burial, it convinced him of the truth of Islam. Obviously, that would not work for most, but that’s about as utilitarian as it gets.
Peace.
Plums don’t have kids; immigrants do, and as Karlin pointed out – “the son also radicalizes”.
“I’m a big fan of the millet system myself. Nebraska’s OK, Arizona more reasonable, Hawaii is better”
How about Muslims stay in places like Pakistan and Turkey? That seems like the simplest way all round.
Perhaps, in time, they might even produce functional societies that people don’t want to flee.
Are these states sustainable?
Exactly, what sane Westerner would want his society to become like the Ottoman empire or Lebanon (that’s what a millet system would imply). We don’t need any hostile Islamic counter-societies in our midst that claim all sort of special privileges and hope to take over one day. This idiocy needs to end.
By destroying all rival states of organization, they don’t have to be. Its the ultimate triumph of liberal poison.
Hey jimmyriddle,
Sure. Again this goes back to who is being invited in; most of the people looking to come to the West are secular-minded Muslims that have a materialist mindset. And as multiple studies have shown, people from these marginal Muslim identities are the ones that go off the deep end:
“Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/apr/13/who-are-the-new-jihadis
Ironically, the Muslims that would do best in the West are the ones that are least likely to want to come here for religious sentiments. They are the ones that know what the Shariah demands of them are far as compliance with the local laws in a non-Muslim country.
Most of them do. Out of my father’s family, only he came over to the West (US) – none of his other brothers or sisters (7 total) asked for his help or sponsorship to come here. You just have to deal with the ones that want to move – again, the solution is simple; shut down any immigration from Muslim countries. What is stopping you?
Many are fairly functional – maybe not to Western standards, but that’s only the goal if one wants to make it. For instance, the Tuareg still live their nomadic live, travelling the Sahara as they did before they became Muslim – now they also stop to worship at their adorable little mosques:
http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/52f395b66d634d42907e7790a172d9dc/algeria-djanet-man-of-tuareg-tribe-praying-in-desert-mosque-sand-dunes-b4p27j.jpg
Why would they all want to become Parisians and give up their ancient ways of life? Sure Muslims have their issues, but it’s kind of nice that there is no ongoing debate about a third gender.
Turkey is also fairly functional as are plenty of other Muslim countries – if they are hell-holes, why do I read that places like Turkey and Morocco are gaining retirees from Europe? And the vast majority of the Muslim refugees are being hosted by other Muslim countries:
http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/latest/2017/2/58b001ab4/poorer-countries-host-forcibly-displaced-report-shows.html
I don’t expect any help from the West for Muslim refugees – feel free to ask Western governments to shut off any funds, they are beholden to their people’s choices aren’t they? The Muslim countries have the resources to be able to do it themselves (especially the Gulf countries).
The West can help by not bombing or destabilizing stable countries like Iraq, Libya and Syria.
You keep on bringing up the same point about Muslim immigration, and I keep repeating; the West can simply stop taking applicants, there is nothing immoral about this. No one has a God-given right to be able to move to the West. People have always wanted to move to greener pastures – is that surprising? Now if the thrust of your argument is; “Dear Gents, we’ve forgotten how to close doors around here, would you please mind not entering.” then I think you need to reevaluate prioritizing who you need to get your message to.
Peace.
Excellent! We seem to have hit upon the crux of the matter:
This seems to be the endangered species at the heart of the matter.
Peace.
That’s a convenient interpretation for you, but the results of such studies are far from conclusive…just recently I read about a study concerning Islamist prison inmates in Austria which came to the opposite conclusion, that is that most of them came from pious families and were radicalized in the context of networks centered around mosques. No doubt that study has weaknesses as well (iirc it was disproportionaly focused on Chechens), but there are plenty of other studies coming to rather disturbing conclusions (e.g. in Germany a few years ago one found that the more pious young Muslims were, the more ready to use violence). And the jihadi cell in Barcelona a few weeks ago was headed by an imam.
Mainstream media and politicians in Europe desperately want it to be true that jihadi violence has nothing to do with Islam itself and that it could be prevented by better social policies, more inclusiveness etc., so the line that Islamism is just a new form of nihilism without roots in Islam is pushed…but less and less people believe it.
Hey G_R,
No problem – if you have evidence to back you up please provide it. I have provided an article by Mr. Olivier Roy – one of the world’s top experts in the field. He studied the profile of 100 young men from Europe that either went to fight for Daesh or committed terrorist attacks before writing that article. Listen, if you’re going to try to one-up me on that one you better do some serious research to find somebody more knowledgeable on the field than him. These are all the books he has written about global jihadis and extremism around the world:
https://www.amazon.com/Olivier-Roy/e/B001ILIBMO/
I also provided analysis by MI5.
Here is another reference from the counter terrorism wing from the US military:
“Both findings indicate that the majority of the foreign fighters had limited familiarity with the tenets of the Islamic faith. This is consistent with the findings from the CTC’s earlier report, which showed that very small numbers of foreign fighters reported having any religious education and that approximately 70% of fighters reported having a basic knowledge of Shari`a law…. Moreover, our findings also correspond with primary sources indicating that jihadi groups in general prefer to recruit individuals who have limited religious education since they are less capable of critically scrutinizing the jihadi narrative and ideology, in addition to being less familiar with contrasting Islamic schools of thought.”
https://www.ctc.usma.edu/v2/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Cradle-to-Grave2.pdf
Yeah – here’s your “imam”s profile – surprise, surprise!:
“Belgian media reported that the suspected ringleader of the attack, Moroccan imam Abdelbaki Es Satty, spent at least three months in the country…
Hans Bonte said Es Satty attempted to work at mosques in the city but was refused by community members who reported his arrival to the police…
Acquaintances of Es Satty said he was not religious until being jailed for smuggling hashish and meeting Rachid Aglif, who was serving time for his part in the al-Qaeda inspired Madrid bombings.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/barcelona-attack-spain-cambrils-isis-latest-imam-abdelbaki-es-satty-madrid-bombings-belgium-a7903966.html
LOL! You’re kidding me right? What legitimate institute did he study at? Who were his teachers? Anybody can become an imam at some hole-in-the-wall-do-it-yourself mosque.
Like the guy who was the guide for the brothers that did the Charlie Hebdo thing – the janitor-turned-mufti:
“By the time Benyettou was 22, Filiu writes, he was spending his time perusing jihadi websites and dressing in garb that primarily only Muslim preachers wore. When the mosque he belonged to expelled him, he joined another; it was there, The Washington Post says, that he worked as a janitor and met Cherif Kouachi, now 32, whom French authorities suspect participated in the Charlie Hebdo attack along with his brother, Said, 34. ‘Benyettou operated in the margins of the religious community, defying the older imams and scorning their speeches,’ Filiu writes. Benyettou, whom followers called Abu Abdallah, Filiu adds, “built up his own brand of Salafi-esque preaching, far from any established guidance, with a strong emphasis on jihad.”
http://www.newsweek.com/meet-farid-benyettou-man-who-trained-paris-attack-suspect-cherif-kouachi-298028
I’m not an SJW Muslim – I don’t even believe in that Leftist clap-trap. I’m not saying it doesn’t have anything to do with Islam – I’m saying it has no grounding in traditional Islam. It’s got plenty of backing from our Salafi-Wahhabi extremists. Did you hear about the bombing in Mogadishu?
Look, there’s a whole host of reasons why you can legitimately not like Muslims or Islam, but let’s get serious. This is the reason why a Muslim with my background isn’t fooled by this stuff – I wouldn’t give these losers the time of day. I have met many, many qualified Muslim scholars in my life and studied under multiple muftis from the US and the UK – none of them ever supported terrorism or breaking the law in the West. None.
But, maybe guys that don’t know how to pray know better than men who’ve spent decades of their life learning this tradition:
“Bulama Modu is said to be a Boko Haram commander from the Bulakuri area of Nigeria’s restive northeastern region, where, according to army spokesmen, dozens of militants were recently captured by the army, according to army spokesman Sani Usman. ‘I don’t know how to read the Quran,’ the captured militant chief admits in the footage in response to interrogators’ questions about his understanding of Islamic jurisprudence. He adds: ‘And I don’t know how to perform [Muslim] prayers either.'”
https://www.dailysabah.com/africa/2015/09/25/boko-haram-leader-cant-read-quran-nor-perform-islamic-prayers
Peace.
Not a student of botany?
(/sarc of course, really applies to rest of comment)
For the same reason Mexico does despite endemic drug wars. Plus, as unlivable as these places might try to make themselves for the elderly, Europe seems to have them beat on that score.
One would think, but it seems this is no longer so. Not, judging by public opinion, that it would necessarily make that much difference.
From a non-Muslim perspective, specifically terroristic Islamism seems to be an old form of nihilism with roots in Islam, but separate from the main stream, though accessible through exaggeration of tendencies within that stream.
Thanks, very interesting.
You’re from SoCal, right? You might appreciate this book by Jessica Mitford. Have you read The Loved One?
Speaking of SoCal and burials, did you know Nazli Sabri, former Queen of Egypt, died and was buried in LA? I didn’t until the other day.
That’s about the study in Austria I mentioned:
http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/oesterreich/5262138/Studie_Radikalisierte-wissen-mehr-ueber-Islam-als-gedacht (the study supposedly shows that the questioned radicals come mostly from pious families, know about Islamic theology and reference classical Islamic texts as justification for their ideology).
Certainly can be questioned how representative that study is (it was about 29 young men, 2/3 Chechens). And yes, no doubt Islamist movements attract a fair number of psychopath nutcases and criminals, that is to be expected. But something like ISIS is only the most extreme manifestation of Islamist movements anyway. The militant anti-Western hostility and the attempts at subversion are just as present in something more mainstream like organizations affiliated with the Muslim brotherhood or with Turkey’s AKP. I don’t buy for one minute that the antidote to jihadism is more “real” Islam, European support for supposedly “moderate” Islamic organizations (which are only “moderate” when compared to violent jihadis…but actually pursue many of the same goals by different means) is deeply misguided.
I don’t know, this dude chose it over Spain. Seems pretty happy – he says he even had two surgeries done there rather than the UK:
http://www.expatexchange.com/advice/96/65606/110/Turkey/Retirement-In-Antalya
Being too expensive to reside in for older people is also a sign of dysfunction.
Hallelujah! Someone gets it!
Shaykh Bilal Ansari was my teacher of hadith sciences, he clearly tells it like it is; Muslims should not be surprised by this phenomenon – the ugly head of extremism arises every few centuries in our tradition and causes trouble until it is finally put in check…to arise again after a few centuries…it’s basically Khawarij-redux:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhuhpTMrlSA
The good thing is that I am hearing that this is being publicly debated even in Saudi – this is very good news:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyHeRImQOl0
Peace.
Why I said the /sarc tag about plums should extend to the rest of the comment. Basically I was saying that Europe nowadays seems, at least at second hand, a lousy place to grow old.
True. Why doesn’t Europe stay out? Or take a cue from Muslim treatment of Christians– proselytization is stopped because it is in the interest of “open” Christians not to make converts. Muslim nations are your friend in this kind of thing. Destroying them and replacing their governments with radicals– bad idea.
edit:
Wow, is NHS so bad? I’ve heard so, but not at first or second hand.
Hey G_R,
Thanks for that reference. This is actually the first study that I have seen that conflicts with what practically every other study has shown (and it seems to acknowledge that). I wonder if there is something particular to the group that was surveyed or what’s going on in Austria.
That’s cool, Prof. David Cook (another academic expert: https://reli.rice.edu/people/faculty/david-cook) seems to think so:
“So, you have within you a strong tendency – this strong ahistorical tendency to pretend that history just simply didn’t exist, if you’re a Salafi, if you’re a radical. Because you have to…because then you can begin to ignore the huge mass of Shariah that you have to deal with…Who has the authority? For the traditional Muslim, it has to be the ulema – it has to be the religious hierarchy. But, uniformally, this group is hostile to radicalism. As a matter of fact, to me – to my eyes, the most obvious way to innocculate a Muslim from radicalism is actually just to put them in a religious school and make them learn the traditional way. Because, in actuality, that forces you into a world – a conceptual world – that is quite, quite distant from radicalism and doesn’t allow you to actually go into it very well.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VQ9AvJB_k4&t=38m40s
I mean, we are a proselytizing religion, so that’s not going to change. Europe could simply block that by rolling back the clock and penalizing proselytization again – up to you really.
But I seem to see a difference between peaceful preaching and truck bombs in marketplaces.
Peace.
I was referring to state support for “conservative” Islamic organizations in Western Europe.
If Western countries adopted a similar approach towards Islamic minorities as the Islamic world does towards (often long-established) non-Islamic minorities, I can imagine the outcry and accusations of “oppression” by Islamic countries and organizations…these are people after all who get hysterical over caricatures of their prophet and lobby for an international ban on “blasphemy”. The double standard and lack of reciprocity is palpable with Muslims.
And I’m strongly opposed to Western military interventions in the Islamic world, they have been disastrous. I’m in favour of disengagement as much as possible – no more wars wrecking Islamic countries, no more Islamic mass immigration.
Popper’s Paradox – yet again!
I wonder what would happen if this took place – the massive cognitive dissonance in stopping the preaching of Islam in Europe – basically taking a page out of the Shariah in order to ensure your society’s longevity against a possible future Shariah take-over.
Of course, taking this route has seriously old Christian roots*, but man – that would be a sight to see – kicking Voltaire in the pants like that! I wonder which country would go first?
Peace.
*”To induce anyone to apostatize was an offence punishable with death [Theodosian Code, XVI, title 7, De apostatis; title 8, De Judæis; “Corpus juris romani ante-Justinianæi” (Bonn, 1840), 1521 – 1607; Code of Justinian I, title 7, De apostatis l. c. 60, 61]” – now that’s old!
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01624b.htm
Hey G_R,
So? Do you have to listen to them? Just say “hey, we’ll allow preaching when you do”. I mean, Muslim countries ignore a heck of a lot of stuff the West preaches to us about; gay rights, etc. You can’t please everybody.
There is no double standard – the West clearly calls themselves secular nations and virtue signal about it. Muslim nations do not; many state very clearly that Islam is the law of the land or that no law shall be introduced which violates Islamic law. Asking Western nations to abide by their laws, that they formulated is not hypocrisy – the West can feel free to demand Muslim countries to abide by Islamic law when they violate it by oppressing non-Muslim minorities.
Look, you can block Islam from being preached, but then drop the secular label or at least be up front and say we don’t treat all religions the same. Can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Peace.
If this were the case the Islamic governments of the world wouldn’t covet an world-wide blasphemy ban. Your reasonable Muslim schitck really starts to slip when you get backed into a corner. Additionally quite a few Muslim nations are signatories of UN Declarations that preclude the very behaviors towards religious minorities in which they engage. This is hypocrisy of the highest order and emblematic of the Islamist commitment to double standards.
Hello all, first time poster, long time lurker. First off, thanks to everyone writing here for sharing their insights, knowledge and sources to help others and myself try to make sense of this mess. Second, thanks to Mr.Unz for this website and the freedom of speech on his site.
The following is a preface I’ve translated from a re-edition of a book written in 1910 in France called “The Anti Christian Conjuration, the masonic temple wanting to erect itself on the ruins of the catholic church” . As a previous poster had said, things were seen coming from way back. The book gives the point of view of a traditionalist catholic monsignor, Henri Delassus (1836-1921). The positions he defends have been out of favor in mainstream Catholicism since Vatican 2 in 1962 (for all sorts different reasons). The preface is written by Anne Lucken and I have found there are many relevant points that can serve as starting points for more research.
Cheers!
The powers of hell will not prevail against Her. (Matth., XVI. 18)
To touch the spirit, to modify the natural perception of things, to invert feelings: it’s in the papers, the radio and today on TV that is mixed the mortar which will help build the Temple. But school is designated as the place where the concrete shall be poured to ensure its foundations. Children, the free-mason Danton use to say, “belong to the Republic before belonging to their parents […] the freedom we give them does not extend to raising their kids in ways other than we see fit.” Laurence Rossignol, socialist senator, echoes his words two centuries later “children do not belong to their parents, they belong to the State.” In 1887 with the institution of neutral school, then minister of public instruction Eugène Spuller exclaimed in a speech, “School, here now is the temple for the faith of the new ages!”
It is with the same emphasis that our current minister, occupying the same posting, writes: “the revolution is meta-historical event, that is to say a religious event. […] thus school has a fundamental role, since school must rid the child of all his pre-republican attachments so that it may raise him to become a citizen. And this is truly a new birth, a transubstantiation that occurs in school and by the school, this new church with its new clergy, new liturgy, its new Tables of law.” (1)
The higher-instances of the Lodges understood this well, as they said: “it is to youth we must go, youth that needs to be seduced, it that we must lead without its knowledge. Go to youth, and if possible, to childhood.” And again in the words of an educational counsellor “the interest of starting right at the nursery level, right at kindergarten is to work on stereotypes from the start.” “We must take the child from his parents at the earliest age possible, to tear him away from all the determinisms; familial, ethnic, social, intellectual.” This is once again our education minister speaking.
We pretend to believe that these words are firstly targeting Islam, because it is simpler to bring about a public opinion that may feel threatened by the expression of a religion which had no presence or very little on French soil a few decades ago- Islam acting, at the same time, as a scapegoat and involuntary ally- while they attack just as much, if not more, the catholic religion, as sickly as it is, in the fear that with all the societal changes we face (homosexual marriage, omnipresence of pornography, right of life and death which finds expression in rights regarding abortion, assisted reproductive technology, surrogacy and euthanasia etc.) there is a revival of the religious sentiment which slumbers in many of the French.
Only the revealed religions, those that announce an afterlife, religions of transcendence, are targeted. Those that only provide a code of conduct in exchange for earthly riches are carefully left outside the media field, since they do not bother the materialistic project of our age but actually support it and can even act as moral front(2)!
To destroy Catholicism, the entire social structure needs to be destroyed: “[…] also, with the shouts against the Church, are those not less hateful, against family and against property. And it must be so, because the truths of religious order have entered into the very substance of these institutions.” The suffragette had not yet burned their first church when already the free-masonry was leasing “its temples in order to host conferences on free maternity.”
Destroying the family was the first step to rip the child from his determinisms, and in order to do so the destruction of marriage had to be brought about: “civil marriage and divorce are the steps that will lead toward free love, and afterwards to the State, as unique nurturing father, unique educator of the future generations”. The Educator State being first of all a legislative State, it makes the law, human law, man’s law, it is understood that “this law can reach everything and in all things it creates rights without regard for anyone or anything, not even God, not even the demands of human nature.”
Despite Mgr. Delassus’s clairvoyance, having anticipated civil marriage and divorce, the honest Monsignor could not have imagined civil solidarity pacts and marriage for all which are the last step towards the destruction of the family, always under cover of the same words: Liberty! Equality!. Words whose beauty has been perverted by the free-masonry, as the intervention promoting gay marriage by the minister of woman’s rights, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, in front of a group of school kids testifies: “This will allow more liberty, more equality in society; It must be understood as a step forward.”
And in parallel with the destruction of the family and the charge of children being given over to the State, there needed to be an attack on the rights to property. At first glance we could be surprised that Christians would support the idea of property. It’s because the Christian has a sense of sharing and that in a sharing, everyone has something, that is to say everyone owns something but within the limit that possession allows the other to also possess something. Beyond this semantic definition, it must be understood that if the condition for a hermit’s freedom is to have nothing, neither does he have a social role or responsibility of a family, in a word, he has no charges. For the one who has a career, wife and children, it is not destitution, nor is it the State’s prodigality which will render him free: it is to be master of his destiny, owner of his work and of a home.
On the one hand there is property that allows man to be free, which is to say, freed partially from the worry of having to satisfy his basic needs. He can then devote himself to do other things, to raise himself above matter that when lacking, occupies all his time and mental energy. Opposed to this is property as desire to hoard, never satisfied, which hinders the one who succumbs to it, filling all his time and thoughts towards this unquenchable goal: to possess more and always more, small or big things, depending on his means, possession-frustration which instead of freeing man from matter drowns him in it and holds him down on earth.
Of these two aspects of property only the first is attacked by the free-masonry, the second on the other hand is promoted by a thousand ways.
In a society “normally organised, there is between the individual and the State intermediate societies that surround individuals […] these societies are named: families, corporations, communes, provinces, Churches. That in this regime, should the weakest of individuals be wronged by the State or any other, it is his association, a whole organized collective that rises up to defend him. By it, he is strong, and because he is strong he is free.” Deprived of family, deprived of natural community, deprived of economic independence, “in the society dreamt of by free-masonry, there will only be, or there should only be two parts, the individual and the State. On one side, the omnipotent State, on the other the powerless individual, disarmed, deprived of all liberties since he can do nothing without the State’s permission.” All that exists outside the State is in some way the fruit of usurpation, giving the Leviathan the right of demand “that must be specifically exercised towards associations because they are stronger than the individual, and in particular towards associations that promote an ideal other than the one of the naturalist State.”
The Republic tells us there is nothing between the State and the individual. We see this as a guarantee of equality. In reality this atomization of society – being wholly unequal since certain interests are defended by lobbies whose power is granted by the State, some because they finance its representatives and others because their demands happen to coincide with the direction that those who govern us want to give to society- is an extreme weakening of each person, a dive into emptiness, a deprivation: the individual alone and naked. Promoted as a simple addition of particular interests, “democracy is slavery”.
Contrary to what we may think, collectivism does not give clothing to man, it gives him a uniform. He may not be as cold, but he would have lost all identity, all individuality. Collectivism is the mirror of ultra-liberalism. It has long since been there to aid the other in asserting and promoting itself; they march in the same direction. At first glance there is a total antagonism between the promotion of liberalism and that of collectivism. But as you look closer, by different ways, one and the other come to the same dehumanization of man and it is striking to see that it springs from the same principles, humanism first, then the Rights of Man, that the process of destruction of the Church has taken the massive dimension we have known with soviet collectivism and that we see today with liberalism.
But let’s not be fooled: if collectivism looks dead this is only an appearance, because it is by the watchword of Equality! that all differences are smoothed out in order to dissolve man into a shapeless magma. Equality of the master and the student, equality of the brilliant and the mediocre, of the honest and the perverted, of the fertile heterosexual and the sterile homosexual, equality of man and woman to the point melting them into some hybrid, hesitant, wandering throughout all its life, who is not hermaphrodite, since not Hermes nor Aphrodite, asexual yet at the same time hypersexual. Collectivism wants to dissolve man, in all his aspects; into a mixed mass, led by an oligarchy which draws its legitimacy from the electoral process, -which is to say, from the strength of propaganda- in the first place, and from pure force in the second, which we see appearing before our eyes today. Liberalism, once it reaches its peak will have put in place the most monstrous of collectivisms, man without nature, without roots, indeterminate man, shapeless and lacking direction, a simple interchangeable consumer-actor.
But above the human mass, will be a perfectly determined plutocracy: “collectivism is the State substituting itself to individuals in the possession of wealth (…) and the State is man, it is men who hold power.” Further, Mgr Delassus elaborates his thinking: “collectivism is the term to which tend the Jews, collectivism that, under the appearance of giving everything to the State, will put everything in their hands, they that are hidden behind the anonymous personality of the State.” Behind the Temple is the Synagogue and the accomplishment of the prophecies: “the Jews […] created the free-masonry in order to enroll men who did not belong to their race, engaging themselves nonetheless in helping them in their work, collaborating with them to the establishment of Israel’s reign amongst men.”
Thus “the Jewish kabala is the philosophical base and key of the free-masonry.” We might believe that all this arises out of conspiracy, a very practical word used to reject any idea that bothers the projects of globalization. We only need to listen to those who rule us, and who sometimes seem to forget we can hear them. Or do they do it on purpose? We could ask ourselves this… Here again our minister Vincent Peillon confirming what we hardly doubted, defining the religion of secularism: “it is a religion of liberty, a religion of human Rights, […] it is somewhat of a heterodox religion in the sense that it bases itself on a whole current that we find at the same time in the Kabbala, in Illuminism, with the idea that, basically, it is men who must continue the divine creation.” (3)
For the For the Jews, the messiah will arrive once the Hebrews have returned to the Promised land.
For Catholics as well this must be done but, Israel is not land bordering on the Jordan, Israel is the Church. By praying for the conversion of the Jews, for their entry into the Church, the catholic was praying for the completion of the necessary conditions to the return of Christ. Today Israel is back on the edges of the Jordan, the reconstruction of Solomon’s Temple is being studied and Catholics no longer pray for the conversion of Jews. By abandoning its dogma, by forgetting that Christianity is born from the recognition of the messiah in Christ against the Jews who did not recognize him, the Catholic Church has abandoned all perspective, she has lost its framework, the base upon which it was built, she has let herself be perverted, softened by the Rights of man for which man becomes the centre of Man, his reason and his project, to forge the new man in a future resembling a materialistic messianic dream, leaven of the coming universal religion.
“What is this new spirit in religion? We have just said it; it is a spirit of tolerance in matters of dogma, in order to arrive to a more perfect solidarity between men of all races and all conditions. It is then a humanitarian spirit.” Here intervenes Satan. “What man needs nowadays is not more trust in an infinite being, but to have confidence in his own nature capable of evolving and progressing to infinity … […] man as source of his own strength, as goal of his own activity, light of his own consciousness and eternal creator of himself: Man-God.”
Whether or not we believe in the existence of angels and Lucifer there is here, on the symbolic level at any rate, something striking. In the Garden of Eden, Lucifer is the tempter, the one who whispers to Eve’s ear that her happiness will not be complete when, amongst all the fruits of paradise, there is one that is forbidden to her.
A very modern temptation of always wanting more… Frustration, a false sense of want that renders worthless what we already have. But the forbidden fruit is much more than a symbol of the multiple temptations we must face; it is the promise of being equal to God, and consequently, in a world where we can do without God. “Such was, at least in an equivalent way, Adam’s reasoning when the tempter said to him: “you will be like gods, you will find your sufficiency in yourselves.” Just like Lucifer.”
In his commentary on the apocalypse, Bossuet had predicted: “I see in the Church two sorts of persecution: the first at its start, and under the Roman Empire, where violence had to prevail; the second at the end of times, where seduction will reign. “
And so, it seems that here we are.
Anne Lucken
NOTES 1, 2, 3
1) La Révolution n’est pas terminé, H.C Essais,2008 ( The Revolution is Not Finished)
2) As example J.Attali in Les Juifs, le monde est l’argent, Fayard 2002. (Jews, Money and the World). J.Attali, who is Jewish, arrogantly claims things that would have lead to accusations of anti-semitism, prosecutions and persecutions had they been written by a non-jew. His work largely plagiarizes an earlier and forgotten book written in 1911 by Werner Sombart Jews and Economic Life which had been written in response to Max Weber’s book on Protestantism and the spirit of capitalism.
3) An interview with le Monde des Religions (world of religions) for his recent book Une religion pour la République ( a religion for the republic). : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGLlsN-Qkh0 blocked link but go: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=vincent+peillon+laicit%C3%A9+is+the+new+religion
Don’t know if a video exists with English subtitles., but if you want I can translate it.
Hey Sam,
Why? Muslims have nothing to lose – have you seen Muslims denigrating the names of other prophets?
I thought the OIC countries had a parallel declaration to which they were signatories:
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/cairodeclaration.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam
Now if you are correct; then whichever countries are signatory to the UN version either need to revoke their signature or implement the UN guidelines that they have agreed to – otherwise the charge of hypocrisy or treachery is accurate.
Peace.
That’s a pretty legalistic attitude imo. Exploiting the tolerance and generosity of Western societies while having no intention to ever reciprocate is morally quite dubious imo.
Besides you’re wrong about this whole “secular nations” business…the West doesn’t just consist of the US and France. Most European countries have established churches or strong state-church connections. I personally have my doubts whether this is always a good thing, but it’s quite different from how you present it.
From a Christian perspective your entire religion is blasphemous, you’re denying Christ’s divinity after all.
And given Muslim’s extremely negative attitudes towards other religions (non-“people of the book” and their faiths don’t even have a right to existence in traditional Islamic thought as I understand it), this “We’re not denigrating anyone” isn’t very credible imo.
Listen, I’ve said this before – the Western countries changed their laws by themselves without any input from Muslim nations or peoples – period. Trace it all the way up to Westphalia. Now, Muslims stood in line at embassies and applied (like my father) to be able to come to Western countries. Part of that motivation was that we would be allowed to live and practice Islam freely (again a decision that was made by the West). Now, if Western countries would have made it clear that any immigrants
Look this is a mess the West made – don’t ask Muslims to follow in self-defeating policies because misery loves company. We haven’t changed our principles, the West did. Muslims are seeing what the end results of unchecked decadent liberalism and hyper-individualism leads to.
As far as reciprocity; I am with my teachers – in supporting the most expansive and generous rules for non-Muslims that the various historical interpretations of the Shariah allows (usually that is the Hanafi school, but others are at times more permissive). If we can adjust jizya so that it matches Muslim taxes – cool. If non-Muslims can get exempted by spending time in armed service – cool. If they can proselytize between each other – cool. Have their own areas where they can dress as they like, drink alcohol, have their own police forces, etc. – cool with all of that.
But we aren’t going to change the principles that have been arrived at by consensus to please others – especially when we see what the results are.
Sure – and monarchs. OK so are they going to start rescinding religious equality laws and disengage from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (that was just mentioned)? Look, I’m cool with this – it would be hypocritical for me to say it’s wrong for a nation that clearly states its national religion and that it blocks others from preaching their religion. I’m just saying, we traditional Muslims are going to be seriously chuckling inside; man, was that nonsense short-lived or what? Would that phase be called the Endarkenment?
On the plus side – the liberal/post-modernist Muslims would crap their pants.
Peace.
Sure and vice-versa. I’ve explained this before; normal blasphemy that is assumed to be part of one’s religion (like rejection of the Prophet [pbuh]) is considered protected by the dhimmah contract.
C’mon bro – Christians say everyone else is going to hell. Can’t have such a thin skin. I’ve heard the worst things made up about Islam to denigrate it from all sorts of people; Jews, Christians, atheists, etc. Again, let’s be real here – post-modernism has plenty to try to crucify Islam with in the court of public opinion, but people still make up crap about it all the time in order to defame it, so it’s not like everyone else acts like angels.
That is a minority opinion actually – and the school that holds that opinion (Shafi’is) never implemented it since they were rarely ever the school of law used by those in charge of areas that had polytheists. In fact, if they had seriously put it into practice – you would never have heard of the Yazidis – they would have been a whisper in history – having been expunged by Kurds (who have traditionally been Shafi’i). Shafi’is had a stint in Egypt and the Levant for a while under the Mamluks also under some of the Ghaznavids and Seljuks in Persia – I’ve never read of an incident where they went postal on polytheists – I’d love to be corrected with citations. The schools that were the most widely applied and had most contact with non-People-of-the-Book were the Hanafi and Maliki schools which were cool with them as dhimmis since the get-go.
Never said that – I said we are not denigrating any prophets because their honor (all of them) is sacrosanct. And from what I have been taught, one must be careful with names of non-Abrahamic sages or religious men of the past like the Buddha, Confucius, etc. because it is possible they were prophets and one should never play games with something so serious.
Peace.
Oops…lost it mid-thought:
Now, if Western countries would have made it clear that any immigrants from muslim lands would not be able to preach their religion, we might have thought twice about it or maybe not settled permanently, etc.
You talk too much and aren’t quite smart enough to argue with the slipperiness level you deploy. You claimed that their is no hypocrisy because Muslims simply exploit the laxity of Western standards to their benefit. Well that argument collapses in the face of concerted efforts by the world wide Islamist network to bind the West to anti-blasphemy policies via international organizations. The Islamists can’t even hold up their end of the extremely shit bargain you’ve foisted on the west. Until the Islamists cease this putrid interference your point is moot.
I truly pray that the day doesn’t come when you and your fellow islamists begin to tremble with the same fear as Egyptian Copts. Your Islamists betters make me worry that my prayers may be in vain.
Supposing that the royal dynasty of some random Muslim country converted to some other religion (or remained Muslim, why not) and allowed complete freedom to the members of all religions to preach so far as consistent with other law, would this be a legitimate pretext for rebellion? Do the schools vary?
Hey Sam,
I feel I’ve been fairly straight forward. If you want to argue points, let’s do so – ad hominem is a losing game for everyone and doesn’t look good for your side to resort to.
Correct. I don’t expect anything more than what Muslims allow for non-Muslims. If the Western nations were to roll back their legal systems to a point where they (like Muslims) prevent Muslims from proselytizing or marrying their women, then it would be hypocritical of someone like me to complain. But as long as the legal system allows preaching, we will do so and will demand rights as far as the law allows. If people want to change the law, then do so – there are mechanisms to even allow for the amendment of constitutions.
The “laxity of Western standards” was not done for the benefit of Muslims; it was done because enough Christians were tired of cutting each other’s throats, hanging each other from trees and burning each other alive over perceived heresies – read about the Thirty Years War:
https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1407732089i/10758902._SX540_.png
You have the ability to change the laws in the West to whatever you please. If you want to rethink this whole “complete freedom and equality of all religions” thing, it is up to you – we already had that discussion – a very long time ago. I would only advise caution since there was a reason your ancestors set about the legal framework that they did.
I don’t see the connection. If there is a universal rule that all nations agree to that they will prosecute or prevent blasphemy of religious founders (or something of that nature) or denigration of religious books in their jurisdictions – then Muslim countries will be liable to (and should) prosecute Muslims that denigrate men like Buddha, Confucius, etc. or harm the Bible, cross, etc.*
Look, if “muh blasphemy” is that important to you – make sure to elect representatives that do not sign up the country into such protocols. Then people can go hog-wild and publicly masturbate on the Qur’an, Talmud, cross, statue of Buddha or whatever floats their boat. Fighting for the right to blaspheme seems like a pretty stupid thing to put your efforts into to me – but hey, everyone’s gotta have priorities, hobbies, etc. and some people just need their baby jesus butt-plugs**:
https://divine-interventions.com/religioustoys.php
Not an Islamist thanks – I am completely opposed to what many Salafi-Wahhabi extremists are doing in Egypt regarding their treatment of Copts. They faired a heck of a lot better under the Ottomans, especially under their governor Muhammad Ali – read the section called “The Prosperity of the Copts under the Khedive (1806–1882)”:
http://www.urop.uci.edu/journal/journal13/02_leveugle.pdf
And I pray God keep you and yours in security in this world and the next.
Peace.
*We already had something like this – as I have referenced before, the great Ottoman scholar, Imam Ibn Abidin (ra), had already stated that Muslims could be punished for mistreatment of dhimmis, even at the level of simply insulting them or disparaging their honor.
*Ech! Astaghfirullah! I feel like taking a shower just after typing that – yech!
Hola Senor,
As far as I know, yes – if he converted, but not sure if he was simply contravening the Shariah (trust me – that happened and happens all the time – some of the Muslim rulers could probably drink an Irishman under the table). I tend to think unlikely, because rebellion is highly, highly discouraged even against very oppressive or sinful rulers due to the resulting fallout (see Syria and Libya for examples):
“The Prophet (pbuh) said, ‘The best of your rulers are those whom you love and they love you, who pray for you and you pray for them. The worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and they hate you, whom you curse and they curse you.’
It was said, ‘Shall we confront them with swords?’ The Prophet (pbuh) said: ‘No, as long as they establish prayer among you. If you find something hateful from them, you should hate their actions but not withdraw your hand from obedience*.'” -reported in Muslim (a bunch of hadith like this
Imam Nawawi (ra) wrote in his commentary on these hadith:
“As for rebelling against the ruler and fighting him, it is forbidden by consensus of the Muslims even if he is sinful and oppressive. I have mentioned many narrations with this meaning. The people of the Sunnah have agreed that the ruler should not be removed due to his sinfulness. As for the view mentioned in the books of jurisprudence from some of our companions that he should be removed, which is also the opinion of the Mu’tazilites, then it is a serious mistake from them and is in opposition to the consensus. The scholars have said the reason his removal and rebellion against him is forbidden is because of what that entails of tribulations, bloodshed, and corruption, for the harm in removing the ruler is greater than letting him remain.”
Imam Tahawi (ra) thought it was so important he made this a point in his famous creedal formula; we do not rebel against rulers whether they are sinners or oppressors.
Not that I know of (but I haven’t read everything under the sun on this topic) – at that point it becomes an issue of practicality (in the case of the ruler converting); is rebellion feasible or not, do you resist using other means, etc.? Either way, his legitimacy is gone as is any religiously binding obligation to obey him.
Actually all of this took place before when the Muslim sovereigns were displaced by European powers. The entire Muslim world erupted in some form of rebellion or another. I think almost all of them lost though and had to capitulate since the European armies were just too much to handle and some of them used scorched-earth tactics – it was basically either surrender or face complete annihilation.
Some fought until defeat (like Emir Abdul-Qadir [ra] of Algeria) and some made the struggle completely spiritual (Shaykh Ahmadu Bamba [ra] of the Sene-Gambia region comes to mind).
I think the Muslim world would still be under European rule if not for the pulp-your-brother-no-holds-barred-free-for-all (aka WW2) that sapped a lot of their energy.
Peace.
*This is not blind obedience however:
“Listening to and obeying the leader is an obligation upon a Muslim, whether he likes it or dislikes it, as long as he is not commanded to disobey Allah. If he is commanded to disobey, then there is no listening or obedience.” – reported in both Bukhari and Muslim
The Peace of Westphalia didn’t create anything like “complete freedom and equality of all religions”, it merely created a framework for state sovereignty and avoiding new religious wars. Even Britain had the so-called test acts that barred non-Anglicans (including at least in theory Protestant dissenters) from public office and only had full Catholic emancipation in the 1820s.
Tolerance of the kind you’re referring to was a product of the Enlightenment, but even so “complete freedom and equality of all religions” wasn’t the reality in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries, with its state churches and conflicts between secular liberals/Protestants and the Catholic church. “Complete freedom and equality of all religions” is at most an American ideal (and even there it was underpinned by de facto WASP supremacy).
In any case, it certainly shouldn’t follow from Enlightenment values that an alien faith like Islam with its history of militant hostility towards Christendom and the evident unwillingness of its adherents to reform should be allowed to spread in the West. That’s merely setting the stage for severe civil strife, which is what tolerance was supposed to prevent.
The NHS is very good. Britons have longer life expectancies and non healthy life expectancies (life expectancy after you develop long term illness-life under medical tratment, than the US). The NHS will refuse to waste money on treating, say, patients with well developed pancreatic cancer because the outcome is still death with a lower quality of life en route. Most US insurance companies still accommodate doctors out for a buck on that one.
Where are Putin’s ‘Hitler Youth’ groups I have read so much about when you need them?
More hyper wordy inept slipperiness. Quelle surprise. I’ll say this one more time- you claimed Muslims world wide weren’t attempting to impose their values on the west just sneakily taking advantage of the Wests generousity. I pointed out that in fact the Islamists of which you are a stealth, low status member do attempt to impose their strictures on the west via attempts to criminalize blasphemy via international organizations. “Without any input from Muslim countries” those are your words. Words your high status co-Islamists refuse to live up to. Clearly you support these efforts. Clearly when your relatives abandoned their inferior country for this one they couldn’t have been under any illusion that blasphemy was prohibited. So again your claim that if only you guys had known you wouldn’t have come (if only) doesn’t apply in the case.
Another example of your excessive wordiness undermining your attempted slipperiness.
Hey Sam,
Where? I said the West can ignore Muslim attempts the same way Muslim countries ignore non-Muslim attempts to use international bodies to get them to change their values. I thought I was pretty clear about that. Muslim countries are in no position; economically or militarily to impose anything on Western nations. If the West comes to the table, it’s because they want to.
LOL! Look bro – that’s cool – you don’t have to believe anything I say, but why engage me then – it’s just a waste of both of our time.
Correct – I was talking about the historic process of secularization in the West, from Westphalia, to the Enlightenment, French Revolution, modernism, post-modernism, etc. – all of it was done without Muslim input. When you find Western countries start to agree to the blasphemy laws – then Muslim input will definitely have been involved. Let me know when that happens.
Look, I get it, you think “muh blasphemy” is a fundamental human right – it’s important to you. A suggested letter to your representative(s):
Dear Congress/Senator/Minister/Representative,
Life just isn’t the same without being able to wipe one’s backside with pages from the <>. I urge you to block any efforts by Muslim countries to interfere with this fundamental human right. If we aren’t able to publicly defecate on pictures of <>, I’m afraid the terrorists (and probably child molesters) will win.
Sincerely,
XXX
Peace.
Hey G_R,
Yes, I’m aware of the historic development of the secularization in the West and quite aware that a lot of it had to do with Anglo-Saxon and French influence. I used Westphalia simply as a starting point – I guess I could have really used the Reformation as a starting point.
That was sort of mutual. Sure we were the stronger horse for the first thousand years or so, but for the last few centuries, we’ve been getting our backsides handed to us. Now we can keep on bringing up Moorish and Ottoman invasions and Crusades and European Colonization or we can try to start things anew.
Salafi-Wahhabi extremism is actually a great example of a reformation attempt – that has obviously not gone well. And then we look at the other side of the coin, where liberal Muslim reformers are basically calling for the same nonsense that has completely taken over much of the discourse in the Western churches (LGBT, militant feminism, etc.). So no thanks – we’ll stick to the tradition.
If you say so. My teachers have taught me to be respectful and civil to my neighbors and co-workers. They have taught me also to be a benefit to the society that I live in. I don’t support criminal Muslim behavior or them living off welfare or otherwise bringing harm to their host countries. So that’s the perspective I come from and I simply don’t see a need for strife in the future if everyone lives according to the law and in good neighborly spirit. If the Salafi-Wahhabi mentality gets a grip of too many Muslims, then – yes – I definitely see conflict in the future (I mean, they even fight with most other Muslims).
And yes, we will continue to invite people to the faith – to be honest, in the age of the internet, people are coming to us much more than we are actively seeking people out. Especially since Islam gets headlines all the time; that won’t really be stopped unless you want to shut down the internet.
So if Islam is an alien religion and you think it brings harm – as I said, the option is there in front of you; impose restrictions on its preaching. Make proselytization (for Islam – Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. get exemptions) illegal; first violation is a fine, second is jail time, third is expulsion. What doesn’t make sense here? Everything can be done by the books.
Sure some Muslims will cry foul, but; 1) they are a small minority that can’t win any election and 2) you can easily point out that this is not allowed in many Muslim countries either and 3) that they are required, by the Shariah to live by the law of the land. Some of them will then decide to move back to Muslim lands and some will stick around (the ones that stick around will likely not be too keen on religion). I simply can’t see how this isn’t an airtight approach to the problem. The only thing I can’t figure out is how you stop those people that actively seek out Islam – maybe penalties for converting? Or extra taxes for becoming Muslim or something…but how do you track that…this one’s a bit tricky.
Peace.
Of course it is more interesting to write about extremes, but there are plenty of regions in and around Moscow where normal, reasonable people are in the majority and where neither gopniks nor liberasts have much of a presence. I live in such a region myself. Alas, once Anatoly gets really “based” and finds himself a nice round-faced Russian girl with whom to make some highly intelligent babies, he’ll have less entertaining stories to tell.
No way – babies are the source of a heck of a lot of entertaining stories! We’ve had four kids and each one has been it’s own adventure (and reward) – so I highly recommend Mr. Karlin invest in that – and share all the crazy “based Russian baby” stories!
Peace.
Thats a lot of words to say you are right I am slippery and I got caught.
Dayaamn broseph! I am seriously putting myself on notice – don’t even try bringing any taqiyyah madness up in this joint when Sam Haysom is laying down the law! Pure 100% awesomeness – I am considering myself taught!
Guess I’ll just have to go home and beat the wife and kids as consolation*.
Peace.
*Don’t feel bad for them, they’re Islamists too.
Well, I was being a little sarcastic and playing the old grumpy man. I have my own funny baby stories, but I’m afraid that you and I would be the only ones laughing around here. The real point I want to make over and over again is that people (certainly myself included) tend to get caught up in their own pet problems and that it can be very difficult to reasonably estimate the magnitude of a problem without looking at the statistics. Actually, Мистер Карлин often does look at the statistics, which is admirable, but I suspect (though of course don’t know) that he is suffering from a certain selection bias that could be corrected for by spending more time with young, educated families, who in my experience are basically decent and conservative people.
About problems with drugs and murder in the neighborhood, however, that’s just tragic, and I’m sorry.
Hey TBRS,
Yeah – but those are good chuckles; I threw all my Mom’s clothes out the window once when she was asleep and it was either me or my brother that let a cow into the house.
That’s good that this is still the norm out in the area where you are at.
Maybe that’s what is leading to so much dysfunction – just too many people crowded into urban areas. This is going against so much of human history – and so fast. Can we handle this?
“Through most of history, the human population has lived a rural lifestyle, dependent on agriculture and hunting for survival. In 1800, only 3 percent of the world’s population lived in urban areas. By 1900, almost 14 percent were urbanites, although only 12 cities had 1 million or more inhabitants. In 1950, 30 percent of the world’s population resided in urban centers…In 2008, for the first time, the world’s population was evenly split between urban and rural areas…It is expected that 70 percent of the world population will be urban by 2050, and that most urban growth will occur in less developed countries.”
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Lesson-Plans/HumanPopulation/Urbanization.aspx
Or rather, maybe I should say; should we be surprised at the number of pathologies arising in the human species, given that this cataclysmic change is the case?
I remember that a world-traveled hakim (that’s what we call a traditional-style homeopathic doctor) spoke to a group of us once and said; so many human beings for so much of our history were constantly in the presence of horses (they lived all around us and are such an important part of our history – how many battles were won, and thus human history changed, due to the invaluable contribution of horses) and it was a very noble and loving symbiotic relationship – what happens when you sever a relationship like that so abruptly? We have horse farms here in Illinois, I sometimes just take my family to go see them and be in their presence*.
Peace.
*Sorry, now I’m just rambling here. 🙂
By the way – I hope you don’t mind, but I’m going to plagiarize this from you* – this was extremely well put and concise (something I have issues with at times).
Peace.
*But I shall give you credit as “some anonymous internet poster said: …” 🙂
Yes, I certainly believe you that you’re polite, maybe even helpful on an individual level. But you and people like you are forming a counter-society within the West that evidently holds much of mainstream society in contempt and rejects the values it’s using for its own benefit. Something like this can be tolerated for a small minority, but not in the case of a community growing in numbers and influence. It will inevitably lead to strife, and it will end badly for both sides.
Hey G_R,
Correct – Islam is Islam – it will always be distinct from everything else. That is what gives it its unique character. There is no problem in assimilating to the local culture as long as the principles are not thrown out; language, sports, food, clothing styles (assuming they are modest), etc. If you say we are guilty of providing an alternative; agreed – guilty as charged.
I certainly don’t hold people in the US in contempt. I regard them as my people. I honestly want the best for them in this life and the next. Now we simply may not agree regarding what that is. I don’t reject all Western values; I love the respect for the rule of law, meritocracy, openness to discuss and explore ideas, etc. Some Muslims do hold their host societies in contempt – and they should simply leave as that is not a correct spiritual state to be in.
This is the issue. The West has some systemic issues going on, it seems to have lost direction and purpose. Can it handle the presence of a growing and confident faith, when it has lost much of its own? I don’t know. Helloc talked about this – I suggest a reading of the chapter “On the Possibility of Islamic Resurgence”:
The Essential Belloc: A Prophet for Our Times
So I get it, it cannot be tolerated for a growing minority which may eventually change the status quo – so will the mitigating game plan I outlined work? It has generally worked for Muslim societies for centuries. Otherwise, do you have a solution in mind? And I honestly think all this talk about suppressing blasphemy and apostasy is pretty bunk – you could leave those rights completely intact and that’s not really going to change the vector much except on the margins. Read what Belloc says about when European powers controlled the Muslim world (and this was for a couple of centuries in some places) – missionaries barely made a dent in Muslim populations. And the fact is Muslims are in the middle of Western countries where they can leave the religion, but not a whole lot of them are. Enough are to warrant concern, but they end up going ultra-liberal and atheist/agnostic (many are homosexual) and thus join a self-defeating movement.
I have no idea what the future holds for a country like Germany, but I’m pretty confident about a few things; 1) Germany (ethnic Germans) will not simply disappear and 2) the Germany will survive this phase of spiritual decline and 3) whatever the result, she will be quite German.
Peace.
Why is Mr. Karlin expected to have a round-faced bride? A true transhumanist shuns 3d girls for proper artificial wombs and 2d waifus, no?