The West is almost as in love with improving the world, as the Muslim
world is with conquering it. These two contradictory impulses, the
missionary and the warrior, come together in the Clash of Civilizations.
The Muslim world has two approaches to the West; underhanded deceit and outright terror. The practitioners of the former are considered moderates and the latter extremists. The West has two approaches to the Muslim world, regime change and love bombing. With regime change we bomb their cities to save them from their rulers and with love bombing we shamelessly flatter and appease them in our own cities to save them from themselves.
Westerners
worry a great deal over who runs the Muslim world. Muslims do not care
very much who runs Western countries. They prefer weak liberal Western leaders
to strong ones, but they do not believe that there is truly a moral difference
between them. Even a Hussein in the White House has
not improved America's ratings in the Muslim world.
Muslims are religiously and culturally antagonistic to the West. Whether a John McCain or a Barack Hussein Obama is in the White House; America is still a great non-Muslim power. That very fact, in contradiction to the promises of the Koran and its deity, will continue to bring forth a xenophobic response no matter how much America flatters the Muslim world.
Westerners focus their animus on Muslim leaders, on a Saddam, a Gaddafi or an Arafat-- not recognizing that the hostility comes not from the leaders, but from the people. We can remove all the leaders of the Muslim world and replace them with muppets, and it won't noticeably change the underlying bigotry of the Muslim world. And very soon the muppets will also start chanting, "Death to America" because it's the popular thing to do.
Regime change, whether through armed force or democratic revolutions, won't save the Muslim world.
The Muslim world is not backward by their standards, it is backward by our standards. It refuses to make the social and political changes that the West did, but that is because it does not like the trade-offs that come with those changes. And that is a choice that each Muslim country and society has to make. Individualism, freedom and tolerance are not acceptable values in the Muslim world. And totalitarianism, theocracy and repression are not acceptable values in ours. The Muslim world has no obligation to accede to our cultural standards, but we accordingly have no obligation to accede to theirs.
There is always a gap between civilizations, but rarely has the gap yawned as starkly as it does now. We are as eager to bring the Muslim world into the light, as they are to drag us into the darkness. And the momentum is on their side. We don't have the answers that we think we do. Democracy is not the solution. Neither is embracing Muslim culture with open arms. They don't have the answers either, but they have something better; unrestrained violence that is fueled by the moral desperation of a failed culture struggling against the tidal pull of that failure. Like a drowning man, if we try to save them, then they will pull us down with them.
How does one protect them from the damage that they do to their own character? And how does one save people from their own hate?
We are not so wise and so perfect that we can claim to know how to save 1 billion people from themselves. Right now we are having a good deal of trouble saving us from ourselves and we cannot be expected to shoulder the burden of reforming the Muslim world as well. Whatever spiritual or cultural redemption waits for them, can only come from themselves and through themselves. It will not come through a change of government or lavish praise. Only through a growing moral awareness. There is no telling when or if such an awareness will come. There are animal rights campaigns in China and anti-rape campaigns in Africa-- but no progress on human rights in the Muslim world. It is likely that China will be vegetarian before non-Muslims are treated as equals in the Muslim world.
It
has been made manifestly clear that Muslim violence against us, both
individual and collective, will not cease any time soon, and that
such violence is informed by the scriptures of their faith. While
some Muslim countries claim to harbor no violent
intentions toward us-- such claims often prove false under the pressure
of domestic unrest and growing religiosity.
If the Muslim world has raised up a wall of sand against freedom, tolerance and the recognition of our common humanity-- then it is best for their sake and ours that they remain on their side of that wall of sand.
If they refuse to coexist with us, either locally or globally, then that is their choice. They may have their paradise of hefty-bagged women, towering mosques and cowering infidels-- so long as their bigotry and oppression remains on their side of the wall of sand. When they breach that wall, then they have to live by our laws, not theirs. If there is no room for our laws in their lands, then there is no room for their laws in ours.
Thinkers and politicians talk on of how to save 1 billion Muslims from themselves. Remove their tyrannies, some cry. But what will they replace them with? More tyrannies. Governments reflect their peoples. If 1 billion Muslims really wanted to be free, they would be. The tyrants are expressions of their condition, not repressions of their moral will. The Muslim world does not differ on whether there should be tyranny, but on what manner of tyranny it should be. The Arab Spring has proven that.
The most fundamental error of the West toward the Muslim world is that of condescension. Western governments may see Muslims as minorities, but they see themselves as majorities. And throughout the world they are majorities. Muslims in the West do not see themselves as minorities, but as natural majorities who have the right to impose their will and their way of life on a minority that functions as a majority only because it has not yet been overrun and conquered. Unlike refugees who come from cultures where they are minorities, Muslims come expecting to have things done their way. And when the West accedes, that only affirms the Muslim sense of privilege.
The
West condescends to Muslims, and Muslims condescend to the West. Both
reassure the other that everything is fine. But while the West's condescension
is based on wishful thinking, that of the Muslim world is based on
progressive conquest. If diplomacy is the art of saying, 'Nice Doggie'
while looking for a stick, then the West isn't looking for the stick,
and the Muslim is.
The West's missionary impulse toward the Muslim world is not only misplaced, it is positively dangerous. How can the West convince the Muslim world to believe as it does, when it no longer knows what it believes?
The Muslim world lacks such weaknesses. It cannot be crippled by moral quandaries, ideological contradictions, philosophical crises or doubts about the future. Its members do not recognize contradiction, rather they embrace them, until those contradictions explode in violence.
Western codes are black and white, Muslim codes combine all shades into one. When the Muslim world is confused or in doubt, it resolves these feelings with violence. The West does not resolve them at all. While the West broods, the Muslim world slits throats. The problems of the Clash of Civilization cannot be postponed much longer. They are our problem. We cannot save 1 billion people from themselves, but we can save ourselves from them.
The Muslim world has two approaches to the West; underhanded deceit and outright terror. The practitioners of the former are considered moderates and the latter extremists. The West has two approaches to the Muslim world, regime change and love bombing. With regime change we bomb their cities to save them from their rulers and with love bombing we shamelessly flatter and appease them in our own cities to save them from themselves.
Muslims are religiously and culturally antagonistic to the West. Whether a John McCain or a Barack Hussein Obama is in the White House; America is still a great non-Muslim power. That very fact, in contradiction to the promises of the Koran and its deity, will continue to bring forth a xenophobic response no matter how much America flatters the Muslim world.
Westerners focus their animus on Muslim leaders, on a Saddam, a Gaddafi or an Arafat-- not recognizing that the hostility comes not from the leaders, but from the people. We can remove all the leaders of the Muslim world and replace them with muppets, and it won't noticeably change the underlying bigotry of the Muslim world. And very soon the muppets will also start chanting, "Death to America" because it's the popular thing to do.
Regime change, whether through armed force or democratic revolutions, won't save the Muslim world.
The Muslim world is not backward by their standards, it is backward by our standards. It refuses to make the social and political changes that the West did, but that is because it does not like the trade-offs that come with those changes. And that is a choice that each Muslim country and society has to make. Individualism, freedom and tolerance are not acceptable values in the Muslim world. And totalitarianism, theocracy and repression are not acceptable values in ours. The Muslim world has no obligation to accede to our cultural standards, but we accordingly have no obligation to accede to theirs.
There is always a gap between civilizations, but rarely has the gap yawned as starkly as it does now. We are as eager to bring the Muslim world into the light, as they are to drag us into the darkness. And the momentum is on their side. We don't have the answers that we think we do. Democracy is not the solution. Neither is embracing Muslim culture with open arms. They don't have the answers either, but they have something better; unrestrained violence that is fueled by the moral desperation of a failed culture struggling against the tidal pull of that failure. Like a drowning man, if we try to save them, then they will pull us down with them.
How does one protect them from the damage that they do to their own character? And how does one save people from their own hate?
We are not so wise and so perfect that we can claim to know how to save 1 billion people from themselves. Right now we are having a good deal of trouble saving us from ourselves and we cannot be expected to shoulder the burden of reforming the Muslim world as well. Whatever spiritual or cultural redemption waits for them, can only come from themselves and through themselves. It will not come through a change of government or lavish praise. Only through a growing moral awareness. There is no telling when or if such an awareness will come. There are animal rights campaigns in China and anti-rape campaigns in Africa-- but no progress on human rights in the Muslim world. It is likely that China will be vegetarian before non-Muslims are treated as equals in the Muslim world.
If the Muslim world has raised up a wall of sand against freedom, tolerance and the recognition of our common humanity-- then it is best for their sake and ours that they remain on their side of that wall of sand.
If they refuse to coexist with us, either locally or globally, then that is their choice. They may have their paradise of hefty-bagged women, towering mosques and cowering infidels-- so long as their bigotry and oppression remains on their side of the wall of sand. When they breach that wall, then they have to live by our laws, not theirs. If there is no room for our laws in their lands, then there is no room for their laws in ours.
Thinkers and politicians talk on of how to save 1 billion Muslims from themselves. Remove their tyrannies, some cry. But what will they replace them with? More tyrannies. Governments reflect their peoples. If 1 billion Muslims really wanted to be free, they would be. The tyrants are expressions of their condition, not repressions of their moral will. The Muslim world does not differ on whether there should be tyranny, but on what manner of tyranny it should be. The Arab Spring has proven that.
The most fundamental error of the West toward the Muslim world is that of condescension. Western governments may see Muslims as minorities, but they see themselves as majorities. And throughout the world they are majorities. Muslims in the West do not see themselves as minorities, but as natural majorities who have the right to impose their will and their way of life on a minority that functions as a majority only because it has not yet been overrun and conquered. Unlike refugees who come from cultures where they are minorities, Muslims come expecting to have things done their way. And when the West accedes, that only affirms the Muslim sense of privilege.
The West's missionary impulse toward the Muslim world is not only misplaced, it is positively dangerous. How can the West convince the Muslim world to believe as it does, when it no longer knows what it believes?
The Muslim world lacks such weaknesses. It cannot be crippled by moral quandaries, ideological contradictions, philosophical crises or doubts about the future. Its members do not recognize contradiction, rather they embrace them, until those contradictions explode in violence.
Western codes are black and white, Muslim codes combine all shades into one. When the Muslim world is confused or in doubt, it resolves these feelings with violence. The West does not resolve them at all. While the West broods, the Muslim world slits throats. The problems of the Clash of Civilization cannot be postponed much longer. They are our problem. We cannot save 1 billion people from themselves, but we can save ourselves from them.
Comments
I hope and pray you are right, Daniel.
ReplyDelete"Governments reflect their peoples."
That right there is just sad...
I really don't see any progress being made until things hit rock bottom in the West, and I mean rock bottom. The poem First They Came begins with the Communists. An odd choice to put first as a priority but it's going to take an attack on even the most liberal of liberals, the most symapthetic of sympathetics to the evil of evils before things are taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteOnly when the West is forced into alliances with even our enemies will we have the will to truly fight this evil. At this point, the evil of Islamic terrorism still seems incomprehensible to a whole lot of people. Something that can be reformed and reigned in.
We can bury our heads in the ground and pretend that such evil is impossible, but such evil and an is happening again before our very eyes.
As evil as Communism is there remains greater evils in the world. Islamic terrorists will only tolerate these sympathizers for so long. After that they are SOL.
Keliata
There is a knock-down, drag-out discussion on my own site, Rule of Reason, about the immigration issue, whether or not to endorse "open immigration" (especially of Mexicans looking for a richer teat than the Mexican government's to latch onto) or to establish controls on who might be allowed to enter the country. I left this comment in reply to one correspondent's remarks on the foolhardiness of the "open borders" policy.
ReplyDeleteGrant: Good response. I would've posed the question, re your remark about Pakistanis moving here: Why would Pakistanis move here in such numbers? Are they tired of being Pakistanis? Is there something wrong with Pakistan that their citizens would move here in such numbers? And if they moved here, would they all begin to study American history, memorize Patrick Henry's give-me-liberty speech, become conversant in the Federalist Papers, and repudiate Islam, a totalitarian ideology?
But if they move here and spit on American history, call Henry a raciest, piss on the Federalist Papers, and remain loyal to Islam, and at the same time insist that Sharia law is coequal with the Constitution, or superior to it, and that Americans must adapt to them and their religion/ideology, and not the other way around -- would that not constitute an invasion? And "invasion" is precisely what our own government has been sanctioning and encouraging for decades, one governed by the preferential quotas established by policymakers, quotas based on race and national origin.
As for their moving here en masse to find a better life and better economic conditions – that motive can't be questioned, except that they think they'd move here expecting that the prosperity would magically continue and it not occur to them that their primitive culture and religion, which they'd want to preserve, are precisely what impoverishes Pakistan and Egypt and Somalia and Mexico and will continue to impoverish those countries and leave them in states of fetid stagnation. They're as ignorant as our policymakers.
But some of our policymakers aren't so ignorant. Like Obama, they're nihilists, out to destroy the country because it is the good. They don't know how to create. But they have expert advisors who guide them in the policies of destruction.
It's the government that practices discrimination and racism. And it's the policymakers behind that practice who welcome "huddled masses" of their choice with the intention of keeping them huddled and grateful to them as dependents on government favors. They are expected to vote welfare and controls and soaking the rich and middle class every time, and they don't disappoint. Ted Kennedy was one of the worst racist policymakers (aside from his wanting to impose socialized medicine on the country, together with the Clintons and Obama and their predecessors going back decades). Ted Kennedy thought the country was "too white, too European." That is the premise of the Clintons and the Obamas, as well, not to mention many others in government. Who are the racists here?
There must be a better solution to the immigration question than just letting everyone in, and I don’t see it being addressed here, except by a few individuals. And when they raise the realistic quandaries we have been put in by the government, they're attacked.
Another excellent article about the danger of Islam and also the danger in the belief that Islam is a religion hijacked by an extremist minority.When will the Western world wake up?
ReplyDeleteI'm a Catholic Crusader and a sworn enemy to Muslim expansion. I went to a church service Sunday where new Catholic converts were being accepted into the church at the cathedral. There must have been 500, at one service, out of the three that day in one place. The same service was going all over the country. The Catholic Church is strong and united despite what the media claims. We will fight on all fronts when the time comes. What the Liberals don't understand is that in their acceptance of Muslim tactics, they sign their own death warrants if the Muslims ever take over. They won't be able to reason with them over issues. I asked a Liberal why they don't picket Muslims for their stance on gays and women. The Liberal hems and haws and provides no answer except naked fear. Catholics are easy targets. They know we won't kill them in the name of our God just for being different.
ReplyDeleteHow can we save ourselves? We are destroying ourselves a little more each day.
ReplyDelete"The tyrants are expressions of their condition, not repressions of their moral will."
ReplyDeleteOn such deft observation turns a world of Truth!
Once again, my comment has run blog-post length, so I will spare your readers and indulge myself in the obscurity of my own blog pad.
I think your previous post on The Murderer's Honor is the perfect complement to this one. Together they answer a world of political conundrums posed by the Muslim dilemma.
ReplyDeleteK.A. indeed, just look at the Arab Spring
ReplyDeleteEdward, what people don't seem to understand is that if half of Country A moves here, they take Culture A, including its political culture with them.
Joan, you're always welcome to comment in full
Muslims unlike other people are not troubled by contradictions between their worldview and reality. I'm currently watching Obama's remarks on automatic spending cuts, and he is not troubled either.
ReplyDelete@ Igor: Zing!
ReplyDeleteJoan: Argghh! I mean thanks.
ReplyDeleteDennis Latham, I, too, am a Catholic an a crusader in exposing the injustices committed by people acting on their Islamic beliefs. It is with a sad heart I disagree with you regarding our church's willingness to fight. Within the past few weeks, a bishop in (I think) retracted an invitation for Robert Spencer to speak lest he offend Muslims. That more Catholics aren't outraged about this is enough to make me consider leaving the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies. The previous post should have read "and a crusader" and specified in "Massacusetts."
ReplyDeleteOnly 10 - 12 % of the world population ever lived in countries where true freedom ruled and that includes Europe which never had the full American scope of enlightenment. Because with freedom came individual empowerment and endeavour we had the illusionistic impression for 150 - 200 years of being in the majority, wake up, we are not, the barbarians are!
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of crisis will it take for the non-Muslim world to wake up and do what it should have done a hundred years ago,namely, take steps to eradicate Islam as a threat?
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/winslowplan
http://tinyurl.com/muslimscope
MindRider, indeed, that's a very important point that people need to remember
ReplyDeleteOne should seriously question any group,government,religion or organization where death is the ultimate penalty for leaving.
ReplyDeleteOnly when the Muslim wife,mother,sister and daughter break the hate filled repressive shackles that bind them will Islam ever be viewed by the world as anything other than just another tyrannical tool of control.
Even the "Gods" give people a choice.
I have been suggesting for around two or three years now that we annex the oilfields in Saudi and other ME oil producing countries, plus their ports, roads to the ports and surrounding oil infrastructure.
ReplyDeleteThis would remove their trump card.
We wouldn't annex their money, just the running of the oilfields and oil export infrastructure. We would return the oil revenues to them, less expenses and management fees. We would merely ensure that they could not wreak revenge when we deport millions of allah-freaks to their own creepy countries.
We should naturally, of course, invite fellow Commonwealth countries to join us in the enterprise. For example, Australia has had a lot of problems with islamics and might like their cracking armed forces to join us.
Daniel: That was the point I was trying to get across to people, that if "half the population of country A moves to country B, they take their culture with them." But, some heads are thicker than others, and will never get the point.
ReplyDeleteA wiser policy toward the Islamic world would be:
ReplyDelete"We could not care less what you do to each other; however, if you screw with US, we will "thin the herd" considerably."
Dennis Latham said " They know we won't kill them in the name of our God just for being different."
ReplyDeleteReally? The Church has done it before:killed in the name of god.
I wonder if one day Islam will say what you have said here.
The crimes and missteps committed by the Church are a tiny fraction of those wrought by Islam...and in contrast to Islam those crimes were done in violation of Christianity whereas what the Muslims did was totally in keeping with their beliefs.
DeleteYou cannot even begin to compare the two.
Trying to stay on the wsstern side of an imaginary "sand wall" will not work. Because the Islamic side does not recognize borders, and will try to impose sharia regardless of western isolationism.
ReplyDeleteRemoval of regimes is different than regime change. Remove tyrannical regimes but do not replace them. Give political anarchy a chance in Dar al-Islam.
Regime removal can be done militarily, but can more efficiently and indelibly be accomplished through removal of their money. Taking out oil export facilities is easy and cheap (for us). For them, loss of nationalized oil will de-fund their Jihad and their regimes.
The coincide of the rise of radical Islam and high oil prices/volume is not just coincidence. There is a cause-effect between stolen money and Jihad. This has been so ever since Muhammed raised the caravans to Mecca.
Is the current Muslim situation that much different than Europe in the time of the Crusaders through the Inquisition? Leaders of religion are often corrupt and fanatical. They often use torture, I do not blame the Revelations of Christ or Muhammad. They actually improved people's lives. However, the clerics twist metaphors into meanings not literally intended. The solution would be a religious organization teaching good morals, as taught by all the prophets, but lacking a clergy to foment hatred.
ReplyDeleteThis is practically psychological projection. Islam is on the warpath, trying to conquer the world? No, liberalism is on the warpath, trying to conquer the world. Take an hour and get caught up on recent history.
ReplyDeleteWhy oh why does anyone give a shit if Muslim women can't get a divorce? Why does anyone give a shit that any woman can't get a divorce? It's the progressive religion. It's infected the minds of most of the West and now it wants the whole world. Religions are like that, you know.
And we somehow expect the Muslims to say "oh, what a nice religion you have, I'll gladly convert." A modest perusal of history or the academic study of human psychology should zap that ignorant ass thought right out of your brain.
And even if people were not people as we know them, but these rational machines which judged the utility of religions when making their pick, why should they prefer ours over theirs? Why is sexual liberation good exactly? Why is a society wrought by divorce, childlessness and pornography preferable to one without these delights?
As you say, if those people wanted freedom, they would have it. But you fail to understand that those people are people, and they don't want freedom because in their judgment what we call freedom is not desireable. I wonder if they are equally stupid, that they don't understand that in our judgement what they call Sharia is not desireable.
Here's what a rational west would do.
1. Stop giving a damn about "human rights violations" anywhere outside our own nations. It's none of our business anyway and we gain nothing from the capital we expend meddling in the affairs of others.
2. Ban all immigration from Muslim nations. Europe probably needs some mass deportation. Good fences make good neighbors. If we want to make exceptions here and there for some especially talented surgeon or engineer, so be it.
3. Let the fact that a billion people would rather die than convert to the progressive religion sink in to our thick skulls. Perhaps, here and there, they have, you know, a point.
Read the rule on profanity after posting. Apologies to all, if a moderator wants to delete my last post it would seem appropriate. Here's a civil version:
ReplyDeleteIslam is not on the warpath, trying to conquer the world? Liberalism is on the warpath, trying to conquer the world. This is the honest take on recent history.
Why oh why does anyone care if Muslim women can't get a divorce? Why does anyone care that any woman can't get a divorce? It's the progressive religion. It's infected the minds of most of the West and now it wants the whole world. Religions are like that, you know.
And we somehow expect the Muslims to say "oh, what a nice religion you have, I'll gladly convert." A modest perusal of history or the academic study of human psychology should zap that thought right out of your brain.
And even if people were not people as we know them, but these rational machines which judged the utility of religions when making their pick, why should they prefer ours over theirs? Why is sexual liberation good exactly? Why is a society wrought by divorce, childlessness and pornography preferable to one without these delights?
As you say, if those people wanted freedom, they would have it. But you fail to understand that those people are people, and they don't want freedom because in their judgment what we call freedom is not desireable. I wonder if they are equally naive, that they don't understand that in our judgement what they call Sharia is not desireable.
Here's what a rational west would do.
1. Stop complaining about "human rights violations" anywhere outside our own nations. It's none of our business anyway and we gain nothing from the capital we expend meddling in the affairs of others.
2. Ban all immigration from Muslim nations. Europe probably needs some mass deportation. Good fences make good neighbors. If we want to make exceptions here and there for some especially talented surgeon or engineer, so be it.
3. Let the fact that a billion people would rather die than convert to the progressive religion sink in to our thick skulls. Perhaps, here and there, they have, you know, a point.
Clash of Civilizations should read Clash for Civilization. Islam is barbaric. Muslims are barbarians. Nothing they bring has anything to do with civilization.
ReplyDeleteStop Islam? Simple
ReplyDeletePull the plug on their fuel supply.
Seize Arab Oil.
The solution to the Islamic problem was explained very clearly in this PDF article by Henry Kissinger in 1975
http://www.thefez.net/etc/articles/Harpers_SeizingArabOil_Kissinger.pdf
Then watch the Islamic Serpent slither back into the cesspool it's been skulking in for most of the past thirteen hundred years.
@vladtepes2
ReplyDeleteAre you seriously advocating invading Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran and attempting to control the oil supplies and facilitate their export?
@vladtepes2:
ReplyDeleteIslam was a problem in 2000 because of Islamic oil money. Islam was not a
problem in 1900 beause of its proverty.
In 1800, the prosperity afforded to some Muslims by the piracy trade feeding on European and American Atlantic shipping caused a middling level of violance and trouble. This was solved by the formation
of the US Navy.
The solution is to impoverish, not to develop, the Muslim nations and people.
The best way to do this is to seize the oil fields.
It is past time for all those who want to survive as an individual other than a slave to Islam had better review history and learn why the Catholic Church succeeded in keeping allah chained for centuries and why Western civilization is on its way to extinction or succumbed completely by Islamic rule.
ReplyDeleteElaine
IMO oil is nothing but a fulcrum. The US could have taken Russia's lead when it comes to oil in the arctic.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't rule that out even though it would be an unusual alliance among northern nations. Will this battle be fought on the northern seas?
We don't or at least didn't have to rely on Arab oil as much as this when there is so much so close to home, even though environmentalists would pitch a fit.
That said--this is a war being fought on an entirely different battle field. Hitler was localized to Germany, invaded, and ultimately fought other nations.
Allies invaded some countries and liberated others.
The tables are turned now. Islamic terrorism is not entirely localized but there are Islamic regimes (countries perhaps a better term) promoting and facilitating the international terrorism.
So how do we fight this? Invade countries and "liberate" them from Islamic regimes only to have these regimes replaced by more militant ones?
Intelligence and apprehension of individual terrorists or organizations? Key operatives?
Or an Israel/Hamas situation? Strike-retaliatory strike/operation/war/strike etc.
All of the above? Reducing our reliance on Arab oil is a good first start along with strict immigration reform. It's tragic though that immigration reform will also result in a lot of dolphins getting caught in the tuna nets.
There a many legal immigrants in my community who truly do want to live the American dream and escape persecution:(
Keliata
*I meant to write that Arab oil is nothing but a fulcrum.
ReplyDeleteKeliata
"We cannot save 1 billion people from themselves, but we can save ourselves from them. "
ReplyDeleteWith G-d's help and wisdom. Purim:)
Keliata
the"dear arab brothers" are busy massacaring one another but join with many europeans to chorus israel is the obstacle to peace
ReplyDeletei find the idea that muslims do not see themselves as minorities but as nascent majorities very poignant. this explains their reluctance to abide by the host countries' laws.
ReplyDeleteDG - "And throughout the world they are majorities. Muslims in the West do not see themselves as minorities, but as natural majorities who have the right to impose their will and their way of life on a minority that functions as a majority only because it has not yet been overrun and conquered."
ReplyDeleteIn this regard, Muslims are the mirror opposite of Jews. The idea that "the law of the land is the law" comes from the Aramaic "dina d'malkhuta dina", reflecting the Jewish approach to their existence as a minority people under the Babylonians. Since then we've had some 2,500 years of experience as a minority people.
That's not the case with Muslims who,for most of their history, have been either a majority people or the people "in charge" after conquest, over time becoming the majority. So for them the natural order is that Muslims set the rules. When they're *not* in charge, we see how they work to become the folks in charge. In some cases, that means fighting for autonomy, even independence. That often involves a resort to arms. In Western countries we see both demands for "sensitivity" and accommodation to their cultural demands and values and the emergence of semi-autonomous "no go zones".
DG - "If the Muslim world has raised up a wall of sand against freedom, tolerance and the recognition of our common humanity-- then it is best for their sake and ours that they remain on their side of that wall of sand."
This brings up a notion not considered: quarantine. We simply need to be more selective in who we allow in our country and more circumspect in dealing with countries whose values are simply deemed beyond the pale. Only a few decades ago, our immigration policy was changed to give preference to countries deemed "underrepresented", so we ended up getting more from underdeveloped and failed states. And too many have brought their broken cultures to our shores. It's time to begin undoing that preference.
A proper war automatically creates conditions where each side in the war migrates to where he is comfortable. The war can be either hot, cold or both, but it must be real.
ReplyDeleteSlowly but surely we are moving to that situation.
DP111
Post a Comment