This is the only link you’ll be getting from me today – The 2007 Irving Kristol Lecture, by Bernard Lewis.
Again, Europe counterattacked, this time more successfully and more rapidly. They succeeded in recovering Russia and the Balkan Peninsula, and in advancing further into the Islamic lands, chasing their former rulers whence they had come. For this phase of European counterattack, a new term was invented: imperialism. When the peoples of Asia and Africa invaded Europe, this was not imperialism. When Europe attacked Asia and Africa, it was.
This European counterattack began a new phase which brought the European attack into the very heart of the Middle East. In our own time, we have seen the end of the resulting domination.
Osama bin Laden, in some very interesting proclamations and declarations, has this to say about the war in Afghanistan which, you will remember, led to the defeat and retreat of the Red Army and the collapse of the Soviet Union. We tend to see that as a Western victory, more specifically an American victory, in the Cold War against the Soviets. For Osama bin Laden, it was nothing of the kind. It is a Muslim victory in a jihad. If one looks at what happened in Afghanistan and what followed, this is, I think one must say, a not implausible interpretation.
As Osama bin Laden saw it, Islam had reached the ultimate humiliation in this long struggle after World War I, when the last of the great Muslim empires–the Ottoman Empire–was broken up and most of its territories divided between the victorious allies; when the caliphate was suppressed and abolished, and the last caliph driven into exile. This seemed to be the lowest point in Muslim history. From there they went upwards.
In his perception, the millennial struggle between the true believers and the unbelievers had gone through successive phases, in which the latter were led by the various imperial European powers that had succeeded the Romans in the leadership of the world of the infidels–the Christian Byzantine Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the British and French and Russian empires. In this final phase, he says, the world of the infidels was divided and disputed between two rival superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. In his perception, the Muslims have met, defeated, and destroyed the more dangerous and the more deadly of the two infidel superpowers. Dealing with the soft, pampered and effeminate Americans would be an easy matter.
I chose that exerpt, but it is by no means the most important passage.
Now, a personal note to a particular segment of the readership here:
My logfiles inform me that a large number of media and those involved formally in Canadian politics visit this site. I am fully aware that some of you have perceptions of SDA best described as “sneering dismissiveness”.
I don’t really care about that.
What I do care about is that you read the link from beginning to end.
And that in the future, as you are preparing to direct that well practiced sneer and cleverly worded dismissiveness towards those policy makers with whom you have ideological differences – policy makers, who in many cases, have long understood the grave challenges facing the “secular values” that you so loudly purport to defend – that you first think long, and think hard, about just whose interests you are preparing to undermine.
Here is another more recent example of multiculturalism. On October 8, 2002–I insist on giving the date because you may want to look it up–the then French prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, who I am told is a staunch Roman Catholic, was making a speech in the French National Assembly and talking about the situation in Iraq. Speaking of Saddam Hussein, he remarked that one of Saddam Hussein’s heroes was his compatriot Saladin, who came from the same Iraqi town of Tikrit. In case the members of the Assembly were not aware of Saladin’s identity, M. Raffarin explained to them that it was he who was able “to defeat the Crusaders and liberate Jerusalem.” Yes. When a French prime minister describes Saladin’s capture of Jerusalem from the largely French Crusaders as an act of liberation, this would seem to indicate a rather extreme case of realignment of loyalties.
I was told this, and I didn’t believe it. So I checked it in the parliamentary record. When M. Raffarin used the word “liberate,” a member–the name was not given–called out, “Libérer?” He just went straight on. That was the only interruption, and as far as I was aware there was no comment afterwards.
I’ll be back tomorrow.
Lewis starts out good, condemning our self-abasement and ridiculous historic revisionism about the Crusades, etc. – (I liked the observation that when Muslims raided Europe it was called a raid, but when Europe returned the favour, it was called imperialism) – but then he devolves into selective history, wishful thinking and appeasement.
As great as he claims the Turks were in granting minority rights, they also slaughtered 1.5 million Armenians in the last century. And that wasn’t the first time.
And,
“But the idea of freedom in its Western interpretation is making headway. It is becoming more and more understood, more and more appreciated and more and more desired. It is perhaps in the long run our best hope, perhaps even our only hope, of surviving this developing struggle.”
What about passive jihad and it’s constant manipulation of our freedoms?
While terrorist lobby groups like CAIR, use our freedoms and laws against us; while collectively they use our freedoms to constantly agitate for the implementation of their barbaric laws, customs and privileges; and while second generation, Canadian born Muslims plan terrorist attacks on our soil – I don’t see freedom being any hope at all.
Once the majority finally sees exactly how alien and toxic their ideology is. That it doesn’t just give permission for the most barbaric acts against non-Muslims, but commands them – there will only be one conclusion. End immigration, outlaw Islam, and contain it wherever it is – until they either kill themselves off or become civilized human beings.
Best Line, IMHO
“For some in Europe, their hatreds apparently outweigh their loyalties.”
I forgot to mention that as much as Lewis appreciates so-called Muslim tolerance in Turkey and Spain, they were in fact the imperialist occupiers of conquered lands. The indigenous people, such as Christians, Jews, Armenians, Zorastrians, etc, became the forced minorities, subject to dhimmitude and jiyza.
So his conclusions of modern western intolerance, such as not allowing sharia and special status privilege to Muslim immigrants, has no comparable meaning.
Judeo-Christian, bah. So-called Christians hyphenating their Christianity are doing the same as those they criticize who hyphenate their nationality.
You’re either a Christian or you are not. There’s no in between.
If you want to slay the dragon, first be sure you aren’t contributing to it’s welfare.
Since Kate’s inviting the media to look at themselves, here’s some absolute dreck that appears in a recent editorial in the Mississauga News (A Torstar company):
Within Muslim circles, many are concerned their faith is being distorted, twisted into a radical political movement that bears little resemblance to the peaceful messages contained within the Qur’an.
What messages would those be?
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan
– Koran 4:76
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due [zakat], then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful
– Koran 9:5
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messanger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
– Koran 9:29
Islam has 1400 years of being a radical political movement. The words of the Koran have inspired Muslims to spread evil and misery around the globe. How could a supposedly educated editorial writer, someone who likely believes themself to be above the blogosphere fray, write such utter nonsense?
A far more insightful look at Islam than anything Lewis spoke about:
Warner: To reiterate, all of science is based upon the law of contradiction. If two things contradict each other, then at least one of them has to be false. But inside of Islamic logic, two contradictory statements can both be true. Islam uses dualistic logic and we use unitary scientific logic.
Since Islam has a dualistic logic and dualistic ethics, it is completely foreign to us. Muslims think differently from us and feel differently from us. So our aversion is based upon fear and a rejection of Islamic ethics and logic. This aversion causes us to avoid learning about Islam so we are ignorant and stay ignorant.
Another part of the aversion is the realization that there is no compromise with dualistic ethics. There is no halfway place between unitary ethics and dualistic ethics. If you are in a business deal with someone who is a liar and a cheat, there is no way to avoid getting cheated. No matter how nice you are to a con man, he will take advantage of you. There is no compromise with dualistic ethics. In short, Islamic politics, ethics and logic cannot be part of our civilization. Islam does not assimilate, it dominates. There is never any “getting along” with Islam. Its demands never cease and the demands must be met on Islam’s terms: submission.
The last reason for our aversion to the history of political Islam is our shame. Islam put over a million Europeans into slavery. Since Muslims can’t be enslaved, it was a white Christian who was the Turkish sultan’s sex slave. These are things that we do not want to face.
Jews don’t want to acknowledge the history of political Islam, because they were dhimmis, second class citizens or semi-slaves, just like the Christians. Jews like to recall how they were advisors and physicians to powerful Muslims, but no matter what the Jew did or what position he held, he was still a dhimmi. There is no compromise between being equal and being a dhimmi
Why should a Hindu want to recall the shame of slavery and the destruction of their temples and cities? After Hindu craftsmen built the Taj Mahal, the Muslim ruler had their right hands cut off so that they could not build anything as beautiful for anyone else. The practice of suttee, the widow throwing herself on the husband’s funeral pyre, came about as a response to the rape and brutality of the Islamic jihad as it sweep over ancient Hindustan.
Blacks don’t want to face the fact that it was a Muslim who rounded up their ancestors in Africa to wholesale to the white slave trader. The Arab is the true master of the African. Blacks can’t accept the common bond they share with whites: that both Europeans and Africans were slaves under Islam. Blacks like to imagine Islam is their counterweight to white power, not that Islam has ruled them for 1400 years.
Dualistic logic. Dualistic ethics. Fear. Shame. There is no compromise. These are the reasons we don’t want to know about Islam’s political history, doctrine or ethics.
But the Trilogy is clear about the doctrine. At least 75% of the Sira (life of Mohammed) is about jihad. About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Koran of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers. About 20% of Bukhari’s Hadith is about jihad and politics. Religion is the smallest part of Islamic foundational texts.
Political Islam’s most famous duality is the division of the world into believers, dar al Islam, and unbelievers, dar al harb. The largest part of the Trilogy relates to treatment of the unbelievers, kafirs. Even Hell is political. There are 146 references to Hell in the Koran. Only 6% of those in Hell are there for moral failings—murder, theft, etc. The other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime. Hence, Islamic Hell is a political prison for those who speak against Islam.
Mohammed preached his religion for 13 years and garnered only 150 followers. But when he turned to politics and war, in 10 years time he became the first ruler of Arabia by averaging an event of violence every 7 weeks for 9 years. His success did not come as a religious leader, but as a political leader.
In short, political Islam defines how the unbelievers are to be dealt with and treated.
In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad.
Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam. These are the Tears of Jihad which are not taught in any school.
I think that Lewis’s analysis ignores the basic components of a society – its demographics, population and economy. Lewis focuses only on the ideology but ignores the root causes of that ideology.
In my view, Islam arose in the 7th century as a social response to an economic change; namely, the increased population and settlement mode of economy in the ME.
When the Romans moved into the ME, they brought security, irrigation, roads, markets, a currency, stability. This promoted an increased and settled population. The ideologies of the time were Judaism and paganism, which are both non-expansionist. Judaism is hereditary, paganism is locally relevant.
But the population explosion and economic switch to settled agriculture required an ideology of collaboration, neighbourliness and peace. Something to prevent old tribal jealousies, enable collaboration and exchange, etc. That was Christianity, which developed, in my view, to support and enable this mode of life. It is expansionist but not by force, you enter the ideology by choice. And it is not kin based and hereditary but ‘neighbour-based’.
Islam is a sociopolitical and economic ideology based around a completely different economy. Pastoral nomadism, which involves the herding of animals (camels, cattle, sheep, goats). This economy requires a large landbase, much of which is vacant for long months in order to regenerate. The women are separated often from the men who are out with the animals, and thus, are guarded and secluded.
Islam developed as a reaction to the expansion of agriculture in the ME, which saw a gradual appropriation of their pastoral lands taken for settlements and permanent crops. Islam is not a collaborative ideology, but a warrior one – for its goal is to maintain its land base and increase it – all by force.
The imperialist expansion of Islam is rooted in that original ideology. The ME, turned back from imperialism by the West, remained relatively stable until the World Wars. Its economy was primitive – local peasant agriculture, medium size population, stable, no outside contact.
Politically it remained tribal – which means that authority is hereditary and elite rather than civic. Ideologically, Islam is about a forced and forceful maintenance of an old way of life – without change. Therefore, it rejects the individual, rejects reason, thought, questions, debate, dissent.
The World Wars brought industrialism to the ME. But, the ME remained ‘stuck in the 7th c’ of tribalism. And, within Islam and its rejection of reason, it had no ability in itself, to change itself. Note that Islam hasn’t had a scientific thought since its inception; it can’t; it rejects science, reason, analysis.
So, its primitive tribalism became entrenched, with oil funding military dictatorships of one elite tribe – with the rest of the population left out of any vital economic and political participation. At the same time, you have an exploding population a mov’t from rural to urban – and these people have no power in their nation.
The result – is Islamic fascism, a pathological reaction to this inability to change. Its focus is on a ‘return to original purity’, which is seen as an evangelistic and almost apocalyptic way out of the morass. Again, the morass is due to the inability of the ME to develop a middle class, to empower their own people. Industrialism brought the fruits of technology, but didn’t allow the ME population any entrance to developing it.
Islamic fascism won’t work, because the Islam that it promotes rejects reason and thought. The population base of the ME is now too large for a tribal mode of governance (small governing class dominant over a passive population). It requires a middle class.
As for the West, it has to stop enabling Islam operating as a parasite on the Western economies, via welfare, multiculturalism, etc. Lewis is right with his outline of the West’s hesitance in rejecting a non-participatory population. Setting up identity groups with special entitlements is a rejection of the civic mode of gov’t developed by the West to enable adaptive change.
Islam has to reform itself, to enable thought, reason, questions, dissent. This is extremely difficult to do – but, a population that rejects science – becomes parasitic. Can this be sustained? No. Lewis considers that their expanding population is important. My point is that a parasitic population reaches a point when the host cannot support it. Will the host collapse as well? I doubt it.
My point is that Islam is in a crisis; it has to reform itself to enable reason and individualism. The West went through the same crisis in 1200 to 1500. I suspect that it will be a faster process within Islam but it is equally traumatic on all.
I am no historian, but I thought I would make a couple of points anyway.
First, I have read Pope John Paul II’s apology.
It is an apology for all errors and sins the Church has committed in many areas over 2000 years. Yes it is extraordinary because the Church has never done this before.
The Pope did directly apologize to the Jewish People. He then apologizes for sins committed against all other religions and cultures (this would imply sins against the Muslims during the Crusades and the Inquisition but this would also include sins against the Mayans, Buddhists, etc.). He did not apologize for the Crusades themselves. I think that Mr. Lewis misunderstands the intent of the apology and probably because of cultural and religous differences. Therefore I think it is a poor example of multiculturism – using our current secular definition – but it is an example of constructive engagement.
Second, the ending points about freedom are very apt and this is why it is so important to plant democracy in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan and as Mr. Lewis infers it is an education and an education in democracy takes time.
Judeo-Christian, bah.
Whoa there hoss.
I take your point, but there is a perfectly accurate sense of “Judeo-Christian”, as in culture. Of course that may not apply to right-thinking Trudeaupeans, whose multi-culti is only about 40 years old.
Bernard Lewis, of course, is bang on. But what do we do?
Another Lewis, John, offers us two options. One we have already embarked upon, the other will make the allies (the Left) of our enemies (Islam–NOT just radical Islam) flip out and froth at the mouth. But at this point it is theonly option for victory, otherwise, prepare for defeat everyone.
w3.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp
Maybe try reading Hugh Fitzgerald’s comments on the “great man” over at jihadwatch, triggered by this lecture by the “world’s greatest living authority on Islam”.
I think of Lewis as a demi-apologist as indicated by Irwin Daisy above with regard to the “tolerance” nonsense. [read: Bat Ye’or].
Lewis is on record for claiming that antisemitism was introduced into the muslim world by Europeans. Even the most casual familiarity with the Koran makes that claim laughable. (the trees and rocks calling out, oh muslim, there is a jew hiding behind me, come and kill him).
Moroever, he was avidly supportive of the Oslo “peace process” which anyone with even a modicum of street smarts should have seen as a sham — a Trojan horse which inserted jihadism into Gaza and the West Bank.
ET: Are you aware of the new controversy about the grade 12 text books in the Palestinian Authority. They now teach that it is a religious duty to destroy Israel, so your claim that it has nothing to do with Islam is no longer justifiable, if it ever was.
In 2005, Ontario came close to allowing Muslims the right to establish Shariah-based tribunals.
” ..Premier Dalton McGuinty said today Ontario will reject the use of Shariah law and will move to prohibit all religious-based tribunals to settle family disputes such as divorce.
His announcement comes after hundreds of demonstrators around the world this week protested a proposal [former NDP attorney general Marion Boyd] to let Ontario residents use Islamic law for settling family disputes.” CBC.
I wonder what McGuinty was really thinking ??
After reading Lewis’ speech I offer thanks to Irwin, Matt and ET for each holding the mirror at a slightly different angle to reflect the complexities of understanding Islam. My instincts tell me things will get worse in the Western World before they get better. I fear that now more than ever. Next I will read Bill O’Reilly’s Culture Warrior. A friend recently told me “It (the book) has given me the courage to identify my position and then go on from there.”
me no dhimmi- you are changing the subject. And, I stand by my claim that the basic Israel-Palestine conflict has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. Indeed, to focus causality of the conflict on Islam is a neat way to sweep under the rug the real causes of taking the land without compensation, the occupation and the illegal settlements.
I also stand by my claim that it has been sabotaged by Islamic fundamentalism, who are using that situation as a front for Islamic fascism.
Now, back to Lewis. I disagree with Lewis’s analysis because he ignores the population and economic variables in the development of Islam and in modern Islamic fascism. He completely ignores the political infrastructure of Islam which operates as a tribal rather than civic mode.
He ignores the nature of Islam as a ‘frozen ideology’ set up to enable and continue one particular economic mode (tribal pastoral nomadism) when it was under threat by an expansionist agriculturalism.
And, he ignores the conflict caused within Islam by its inability to change, and its answering development of fascism by the frozen political mode – which prevents the emergence of a middle class.
Lewis’ focus only on the ideology is a superficial analysis.
The experience of India in the last 500 years may be of use.
India used to be 100% Hindu, right up to Afghanistan. Then the Muslims started invading the area which is now Pakistan ad the Punjab.
As we know, the Sikhs come from the Punjab. The Sikh religion is basically the response of Hindus to one too many Muslim atrocities. Their religious symbol is two swords crossed over a halberd.
One may learn much from history. There’s lots of Sikhs here in Canada now, maybe we can learn from them the best ways to handle Muslims.
Then again, Canada has been known to go forth and kick ass when required, presently there’s a bunch of Taliban killers learning to run away when they see a maple leaf shoulder patch.
We just have to decide what we want. Do we want our kids to be able to walk to school, or do we want the situation they have in Israel with armored school buses?
E.T., “will the host collapse as well? I doubt it”. Don’t be too sure. Much of medicine and the survival of humans, from a medical perspective, has been to fortify the strengths of the host(human) and use the weakness of the parasite to render it harmless. But what if we, in the medical community, were to undertake programs designed to facilitate the parasite, and usurpe the strength of the host?
First, the pope should never Apologize for the Crusades, the Crusades were nothing more then the defensive of Christianity; out to recapture the Holy land from the Muslims. Subsequent crusaders prevented Christianity itself from being wiped out. How many revisionists understand that Christendom was pushed into small pockets that almost fell to the onslaughts of the Muslim armies. Without the Crusades, and the Crusaders, this planet would of turned out much differently, and I for one prefer living with a bible than a Koran.
I agree with many of your observations ET, however, I don’t believe reform is possible in Islam. Far too much of it is nonsense, which is being exposed as the rest of the world becomes more familiar with its prophet and teachings.
Perhaps as the Muslim world becomes more educated the completely fallicious nature at the foundation of Islam will be the destruction of it as a legitimate spiritual faith.
Even referring to Islam as one of the three great ‘Abrahamic’ faiths is fallicious. Hagar was an Egyptian, not a nomadic Arab, as Mohammad was. Neither was Mohammad a Jew, as all prophets prior to Mohammad and as referrenced in the Quran were. Therefore one would have to accept Mohammad’s claim to being a prophet as an unreasonable exception to the rule. There is absolutely no legitimate connection, hereditary or otherwise, between the Torah, the NT and the false testimony of Mohammad.
Not to mention the altogether laughable logic of it’s founder.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 007, Book 071, Number 621
The Prophet said, “Fever is from the heat of Hell, so abate fever with water.”
Sahih Bukhari Volume 008, Book 082, Number 830
Narrated Abu Huraira: “A bedouin came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “My wife has delivered a black child.” The Prophet said to him, “Have you camels?” He replied, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “What color are they?” He replied, “They are red.” The Prophet further asked, “Are any of them gray in color?” He replied, “Yes.” The Prophet asked him, “Whence did that grayness come?” He said, “I think it descended from the camel’s ancestors.” Then the Prophet said (to him), “Therefore, this child of yours has most probably inherited the color from his ancestors.”
ahih Bukhari Volume 001, Book 004, Number 139
Narrated ‘Abbas bin Tamim: My uncle asked Allah’s Apostle about a person who imagined to have passed wind during the prayer. Allah’ Apostle replied: “He should not leave his prayers unless he hears sound or smells something.”
The ‘scholarly’ Hadiths are full of such nonsense.
Reform in Islam is not possible, without rejecting a psychopathic prophet, who wrote a self-serving political manifesto, otherwise known as the Quran. And if that were the case, there’d be no reason for Islam to continue to exist.
al-lea- impossible. A parasite can’t live without a host. Weaken the host and the parasite can’t live. Equally, strengthen the host and its immune system will attack the parasite.
So, the West must strengthen the host. That means that it rejects parasitism, which means it rejects the welfare state, identity politics and multiculturalism. It promotes a civic mode where it defines all its population as equal individual members of the nation. Not as members of a subgroup with special rules applicable only to that group. But, as collaborating members of the civic nation.
Again, I think it’s important to consider that Islamism rejects reason, proof, empiricism and science. Our global population is too large to live without a rigorous and dynamic science. Therefore, Islam cannot support a large population on its own.
What must be done, in my view, is to reject multiculturalism and identity politics, promote a civic society in the West – and in the ME, promote democracy and the dev’t of a middle class.
I beleive this, in Kate’s post, to be so telling;
“..The Islamic radicals have even been able to find some allies in Europe.”
“..They have a left-wing appeal to the anti-U.S. elements in Europe, for whom they have so-to-speak replaced the Soviets.”
Think Jacques Chirac, Maurice Strong, Stephane Dion, David Suzuki.
Patrick Moore wrote this in 1994.
” ..Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.”, Dr. Patrick Moore.
Perhaps it is not a stretch to think there is an Islam-Kyoto-Religion connection in the fight against the West’s way of life ??
ET – while I agree with your followup comments, parasites can, and often do, kill their hosts. It’s why they’ve evolved with life cycles that include stages outside the host and the capacity to move on to new ones.
“But the idea of freedom in its Western interpretation is making headway. It is becoming more and more understood, more and more appreciated and more and more desired. It is perhaps in the long run our best hope, perhaps even our only hope, of surviving this developing struggle. Thank you.”
Interesting, but limited, analysis, ending in this piece of wishful thinking. Analyzing and hypothesizing won’t make radical Islam go away. All the mental gymnastics our so called “intellectuals” perform to “explain” the “two solitudes” of Islam vs Christianity, and why they don’t love us, will do nothing to alleviate the situation as it now stands.
We’ve become a generation of armchair quarterbacks, with a very small portion of our people actually willing to do something. Multiculturalism has weakened our society to the point where most don’t appreciate our freedoms, and have no idea how we arrived at this point.
We are weak, Islam is strong, and becoming stronger every time an Islamic child is born in the care of our free health care system. They’ll conquer us from within, in a few years, it shouldn’t be too hard.
We need leaders who would be called “Fascist” by our intellectual classes. Leaders who will take the necessary, and not necessarily nice, actions. And no, I’m not talking about death camps or a nuclear holocaust, just a much stricter immigration policy, deportation, assimilation rather than multiculturalism, and strong and highly intolerant military and justice systems.
I take your point, but there is a perfectly accurate sense of “Judeo-Christian”, as in culture.
Perhaps you could elucidate on the “Judeo” part of our culture? Our laws are Christian, they didn’t come from Judah.
Death of an individual host is not of concern, and carries little biological weight. It is the health of the population of hosts that the dynamics of survival depend on… There is nothing in the “rules of survivability” that say that the health of the host be of quality or plentitude – only that enough nourishment is provided that the parasite may live long and prosper…[insert winking icon here].
Seems that the Pope must know how to order books from amazon.com .. how else could he have got his hands on a copy of “America Alone”, by Mark Steyn.
“VATICAN CITY (AP) – Europe appears to be losing faith in its own future, Pope Benedict XVI said Saturday, warning against “dangerous individualism” on a continent where many people are having fewer children.”
“One must unfortunately note that Europe seems to be going down a road which could lead it to take its leave from history,” the pontiff told bishops in Rome for ceremonies to mark the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, a major step toward the creation of today’s European Union.”
“Benedict said he was concerned about Europe’s “demographic profile”—though he did not describe the trends that have alarmed the continent for decades.”
“In countries like Italy, where many married couples have one or no children, the population is expected to shrink dramatically in a generation or two unless fertility rates quickly increase.”
However, Associated Press did not elaborate on which ethnic group is having all the children in France;
“France had more babies in 2006 than in any year in the last quarter- century, capping a decade of rising fertility that has bucked Europe’s graying trend. Its fertility rate in 2006 was 2.0 children per woman.” AP
//www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O2N9U80&show_article=1
I have just finished “America Alone” and Mark Steyn has written, IMHO, one of the most brilliant books I have read on the state of our western world. The impact of demographics, punishing socialism and the coming Muslim peril. A must read.
In a recent discussion a friend wondered why the Muslims seemed to be so advanced in many disciplines, medicine, mathematics and so on. Mark explains that the Muslim culture shuts down any progress in society so as Mohammed unified the warring tribes he unintentionally cut off a prime source of revenue, fighting each other and stealing each other’s stuff. So Mohammed allowed the presence of non-Muslims in their land as they were charged a poll tax or jizya to remain non-Muslim and thereby provided a revenue stream. They also provided a source of weapons and technology from non-muslim countries. When Islam conquered infidel territory it set in motion a massive transfer of wealth to the Muslims plus the ensuing taxation – or from the productive part of society to the non-productive, a prototype welfare society. When people today talk up Islam and the great innovations and rich culture of its heyday they forget that even at its height Muslims were never more that a minority in the Muslim world, and they were in large part living off the energy of others. This still exists today as Muslim Malaysia owes its dynamism to their non-Muslim Chinese countrymen.
Eventually almost all Muslim societies tended toward an economic dead end as an ever-shrinking infidel base eventually wises up, either they move away or convert to avoid paying the jizya. This drove the Muslim expansion into new lands. Once they were stopped by the Franks in Europe in the Battle of Tours in 732 AD by Charles Martel, which was the Arab high water in Europe but they stayed in control of diminishing parts of Spain until 1492, they were forced to retreat back to their ancestral lands in Africa and the middle east where they languish today, producing nothing. You will also hear from Muslims that they have always been tolerant of Christians and Jews living among them, we know it was because they needed their money!
Unfortunately because of oil we, the infidels, still send our jizya to the Muslims, which they use to fund Muslim religious schools here in another invasion of the west. Through our declining birth rate and their high one they might succeed this time. Imagine the whole western world under the dead culture of the Muslims, scary thought.
To Ol hoss who stated: “Perhaps you could elucidate on the “Judeo” part of our culture? Our laws are Christian, they didn’t come from Judah”
I qualify as an ordinary person (ie make no academic claims) I recently read Thomas Cahill’s book “Gifts of the Jews.” It’s part of his Hinges of History Series. Very readible, it answers your question very well. Available at most libraries.
The history of islam indicates the obvious, you don’t have to be a bloody scholar to figure that out. I also know one other thing, an academic solution never seems to materialize when your head is between your feet.
Ol hoss:
Judeo-Christian is a proper concept. Both the Judeo and Christian religions rely on the same Bible. Both Christians and Jews follow the teachings of the Old Testament.
Jesus was a Jew and He preached from the OT. The Jewish leaders of His time rejected Him but many Jewish people became His followers. Christians believe, as the Bible teaches, that the nation of Israel will eventually come to recognize Jesus as their Messiah.
ol hoss: “Perhaps you could elucidate on the ‘Judeo’ part of our culture? Our laws are Christian, they didn’t come from Judah.”
Scripture makes it clear that Jesus is a Jew and that his lineage is from “the Root of Jesse.” As a course I took at St. Paul University many years ago also made clear, there is no Christianity without Judaism.
Christianity didn’t spring full and upright from the ground. Its precursor is the Jewish faith. Afterall, as I said above, Jesus was a Jew, as were his mother and father and grandparents, etc.–take a look at the geneology at the beginning of The Gospel According to Matthew–and all of the disciples. Christian services always include a reading from the Old Testament and the Psalms. Read Hebrews if you want more elucidation on the part of the Jewish people in the history of salvation through Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ, the ‘founder’ of the Christian faith, is the fulfillment of the Judaic law not outside of it.
John Paul II put it very well when he described the Jewish people as Christians’ elder brothers and sisters in the faith.
Our laws, then, are founded on both traditions: Judaism and Christianity, one of which–Christianity–does not exist as separate from the other. Separate Christianity from its Judaic Root and you don’t have the Christian faith.
I hope this helps, ol hoss.
An article with some meat in it. Though I didn’t agree with all he said it still illuminated the gulf of understanding between Islam’s religious political views compared to ours. The incompatibility of one culture to fit into another because of the inflexible & barbaric laws of the other directed at world conquest in the name of a psudo- religion, all wolf, pretending to be a sheep.
He also gave a clue as to how vicious this war between East versus West has been & why it always has been even before Christianity. As thermopile with the later marathon battles affirms. Does anyone think Democracy or Republicanism would have survived Persian control of Europe?
The East was ingrained in Despotism. From god Kings of Mesopotamia to Assyrian killing squads.
Anyhow the biggest worry should be among Women. For they have the most to lose as this article fits nicely into this post as a REAL world series of events as the forces of totalitarianism continue to appeasement towards Islam.
Men in the West believe in individual freedom with personnel liberty
Men in the East believe the community is all pervasive in the disguise of religion. Men as individuals are not important, only their submission.
Its reflective religiously as well. While one recognizes one can be secular & that God is a Personnel being.
In Islam God is unknowable , distant & all has already been decreed without change. God is not personnel.
In the West natural law is both appreciated by religious as well as none religious people. No concept of that at all in Islam . All are slaves to different degree’s.
Just my opinion.
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2007/03/25/3828492-sun.html
“”””Indeed, to focus causality of the conflict on Islam is a neat way to sweep under the rug the real causes of taking the land without compensation, the occupation and the illegal settlements. “””””
taking the land without compensation, the occupation and the illegal settlements
my take on that statement would be , that the Arabs that took legal (documented) possession of the land, starting around 1890 till about 1948, and sold it to immagrating jews, were th ones that “stole” the land from the arabs (palistinians) that occupied and worked the land. Thus bought land is compensated for land.
and occupation and “illegal” settlements is highly subjective and open to interpretation of the terms used
dmorris: Your call for action is what is needed. We can pontificate until hell freezes over but action is all that counts.
As Mark Steyn points out in America Alone, this is really the Left’s struggle. It’s the Gays and the Feminists who have the most to loose in this fight. Us Right Wingers can simply go along to get along with the Muslim Fanatics.
The action that has to be taken for starters is to become politically active and persuade the Left that there is a common cause as the Reform Party managed to do to a limited extent.
We have to nominate politicians with backbone in our EDA associations and eliminate redundant political parties. The young have to get involved.
There is a polarization taking place in the West – a grand, sweeping vector. There are those in the West that don’t believe Islam is an existential threat, and there are those that do. It’s not much more complicated than that. It’s not as though we’ve had ambiguous statements from radical Islam on its intent.
This is not like some argument over whether we should spend our own money, or have our state do it for us. This is different. We’re not arguing whether I should keep $50 of every $100 I earn or whether it should be $52 or $48. All of that is moot if radical Islam succeeds in its agenda.
Those that perceive this threat and see it for what it is, grow in frustration with those who are in denial.
This will not be a persistent state of affairs, though, as I have every confidence that day by day, radical Islam will eventually convince even the most obstinate western denier that it’s time to put a stop to their imperialism, as there seems to be no humane bounds to their tactics. Converting is the other option, I suppose.
I will die first.
Europe isn’t worth saving. We made that mistake twice (3 times if you count the cold war separately).
I don’t think we’ll do it again. They’re not educable.
There is no room in a conflict free world for ANY faith-based religions supported by non thinking hoardes whose only agenda is to impose their religious and political doctrines on others. In order for humanity to survive a better,, compassionate NON-RELIGIOUS solution will have to be found.
Lewis is a smart man and though I’m far from qualified to seriously critique him (or his critics), he makes some good sense. The parts that resonated most for me were summed up near the end:
Whatever the importance of past struggles and present foes, the West’s single biggest threat is internal. The mushy, postmodern, multi-culti, pacifist, anti-humanity, anti-globalist, eco-loopy, need I say ‘socialist’, lib/left has made huge inroads in the West. If we don’t wither completely away on our own, our enemies, either the barbarians or our more ideologically robust adversaries or both, will finish the job.
As for the mini-debate, started by ol hoss, on the meaning of “Judeo-Christian”, some think it has great importance. See Dennis Prager’s essay, for example.
Afterall, as I said above, Jesus was a Jew, as were his mother and father and grandparents, etc.–take a look at the geneology at the beginning of The Gospel According to Matthew–
You’re looking at the wrong Gospel if you want to find the geneology of Jesus. Luke 3 is Jesus’ geneology. Matthew 1 is Joseph’s geneology. Obviously Joseph was not Jesus’ father.
Jesus is half King line (Judah) and half Levite (Priest), as Luke 3 shows.
Jesus Christ, the ‘founder’ of the Christian faith, is the fulfillment of the Judaic law not outside of it.
Funny, I’ve heard of Mosaic Law, never Judaic Law. And Moses was of the tribe of Levi.
In order for humanity to survive a better,, compassionate NON-RELIGIOUS solution will have to be found.
Oh, you mean like communism. That was a real winner. As have been all other man-made solutions.
From Dennis Prager’s Biblical illiteracy;
“For example, Thomas Jefferson wanted the design of the seal of the United States to depict the Jews leaving Egypt.”
LOL, only Judah left Egypt? What about the other tribes?
OT I suppose, but ET, your persistence with “illegal occupation” and “taking land” without compensation is ahistorial nonsense.
Are you aware that Jordan illegally occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalsm in 1948. Only a single country, Pakistan, recognized the annexation. For this reason UN 242 called for the withdrawal from territories not “THE territories” (the French mistranslated). While it is not acceptable to take territory as a result of war, the situation here was that the territory had been previously illegally annexed by Jordan.
As to compensation: also nonsense. The Jews did not “take the land” and remember about 800,000+ Jews were also driven out of Arab lands, also without compensation. If I’m not mistaken, Israel has indedd offered compensation but most Arabs have refused to apply due to advice from surrounding Arab countries.
The Arab countries created the refugee crisis with it multi-country aggression in 1948 and even encouraged Palestinian Arabs to leave until the slaughter cakewak was done.
We will never win against the jihad if educated people like yourself refuse to see Islam as the source. Read some Wallid Phares — Future Jihad — and see that this is one of the biggest problems we face: the failure to name the enemy which, again, is Islam, and NOT hijacked islam but re-awkened Islam. You have a terrible blind spot here I’m afraid.
ET,
Agree with you. Palestinian nationahood has nothing to do with Islam. The push for Palestine was really led by leftist secular nationalists that rejected religous authority.
Arafat, being the chameleon that he followed to pay lip service to Islam after it was clear that he needed to maintain his power and money flow.
For Bin Laden, it is a convenient excuse. ISrael could disappear tomorrow and Bin Laden would still be trying rebuild the Calipahate Morroco to Pakistan….from Vienna to Yemen.
And who says he would stop there.
Some background on the “American” Enterprise Institute can be found here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute
mediamatters.org/items/200502170003
Triumphalism feeds on itself, what we need is not a triumphalist answer but a competent one. Tackling the IRA was a good example of how to deal with immigrant terrorists.
“Whatever the importance of past struggles and present foes, the West’s single biggest threat is internal. The mushy, postmodern, multi-culti, pacifist, anti-humanity, anti-globalist, eco-loopy, need I say ‘socialist’, lib/left has made huge inroads in the West.”
Yet we’re more prosperous and safe than we ever have been before.
“…great innovations and rich culture of its heyday…”
Algebra and zero were inventions of the Assyrians/Mesopotamians, some 1500 years prior to Mo coming along and regardless of the thief naming Algebra after himself. So-called Islamic philosophy was later proven to be Greek, despite the fact Muslims cunningly translated the original texts to Arabic before destroying them. Islamic mysticism? Jewish. Islamic architecture? Byzantine.
They invented nothing, but pilfered everything. As is typical of a cult of brigands, theives and merchant-slavers.
How could anybody believe that tribes of desert nomads having created nothing other than tents and camel raids, create such wonderful things in so short a time? Creation is something the Arab mind is quite incapable of.
Furthermore, if there was this so-called ‘golden age’ of Islam in Adalusia, how did it so utterly fail, with Islam then devolving to the point where they can hardly feed themselves in the 21st century?
Islamic “invention and rich culture” is a complete and utter fabrication.
Well, ol hoss. I’m glad you’re onside at least by checking out the Judeo-Christian Scriptures yourself!
Matthew 1:1 says, however, “An account of the geneology of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham. I am no Biblical scholar, but I suspect that this geneology is important in the Royal linkage of Jesus to a King of the Jewish people, David, and to Abraham, the founding father/Partriarch of the Jewish Nation.
It would appear that both geneologies are the same, with Matthew’s beginning with Abraham and working forward to Jesus, whereas Luke’s begins with Jesus, “the son (as was thought) of Joseph…Isaac, son of Abraham” and so on back to “Adam, son of God.”
Anyway, it’s clear that Judaism and Christianity are intimately connected.
Canada has an easy and simple answer if its citizens have the will. Stop its policy of “open” immigration immediately.
No more immigrants unless they have a falue to Canada, they speak the language {no ESL classes} they have money or a profession.
Practically all scientists say the globe has to reduce its human population, it has doubled in my lifetime and is expected to grow by 50% more in the next 42 years. In the vain attempt to feed this multitude we are killing the rain and boreal oxygen giving forests and spraying carbon clouds all over.
Canada has a chance to avoid the trap if we stop immigration-our biggest population builder, now. It is primarily boomers, developers, fast food operators with cheap labour, and politicians [“their” immigrants vote for them] Who want more people. Vancouver is on the cusp of being unliveable, now unaffordable, and it is only to cities that immigrants go.
Only plains and valleys can hold people. Most of Canada is a desert as far as living is concerned.
Apparently very few of you get the point of this at all.
Without realizing it, your debate of “finer points” represents the overblown academic cricle-jerk of the Western world who in the face of an external threat are frozen into inaction. All you folks are capable of is debate and splitting hairs. Meanwhile, the West continues to decay and Islam gains the upper hand.
Keep jacking off as long as you like. But all that proves is that you have indeed learned nothing from history. Matters of history were all resovled by action, not debate. The opportunity for actions slips by with each passing day and the pressure builds and builds. There will come a day when the US has had enough and Hellfire will literally rain down upon Tehran. You can wring your hands and debate “root causes” all you like.
That’s right, keep the useless pointless bullshit flowing from your keyboards to further prove my point.
The day for action will come and be unavoidable. Will you be ready? Undoubtedly, no.
“The lessons of Vietnam and Beirut were confirmed by Mogadishu. “Hit them, and they’ll run.”
Or More precisely;” kill just one of them a day and their media will win the war for us”.
There seems to be a rather farcical myth being created about how the British dealt with the IRA. Yes, there was endless talk and negotiation of a sort, but all the time there was a campaign aimed at killing them if necessary. And the IRA knew it, and that made the negotiations meaningful.
I suppose that’s the approach jose was talking about….