8-Jan-15 World View -- The West versus Muslim jihadists

[John]

> Plot spoiler, most of the Germans under Hitler were peaceful
> people, Most of the Russians under Stalin were peaceful people,
> most of the Chinese under Mao were peaceful people, but the
> peaceful people are irrelivant. It is the radicals that drive
> things.

A generational Crisis war unifies a country behind its leader,
because the country and its way of life are threatened. We can
see this today in France as opposition politicians are uniting,
at least temporarily.

But it's a little more nuanced than that. Germans in Germany united
behind Hitler. Even German Jews united behind Hitler. But American
Germans united behind Roosevelt to fight the Nazis. I expect almost
all American Muslims to unite behind the President in the next crisis
war.

> The millions peaceful people are totally helpless against the
> determined and armed radicals.

> In France, honest peaceful people have been disarmed long
> ago. Only the police, the deliquents, and the terrorists are
> armed, and these last two, very well provided. When, very rarely,
> an honest innocent person defends himself and consequently hurts
> his attacker, he is sent to prison accused of wilful injuries or
> disproportionate response, or whatever... That is French
> "justice".

France is going to have to have a major reassessment of its very
liberal society. It won't escape French politicians that the current
crisis proves the claim, "When guns are illegal, only criminals will
have guns." There are questions being asked why terrorists on no-fly
lists weren't being watched by the French police. And this is all in
the context of a faltering French economy being blamed on generous
government benefits and very powerful labor unions.

> I can't stress forcefully enough that Islam is not a
> religion... it is a mind set.

Islam is just as much a religion as Christianity is. Or, if you like,
Christianity is also just an ideology, in view of Christian Nazis who
kill Jews, or Irish Protestants who kill Catholics.

> John I found this
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-0 ... ning-again
> . I do not necessarily agree with all of it since, for example, if
> you look at a trend on Oil price it was for many years in the
> 30-40 USD range. I do not think anyone knows what it is worth
> since QE Infinity skews the market. Anyway I like how you handle
> it – saying it is coming but not giving a precise date. I have to
> admit that I like to read the ZH comments - some are really funny
> but not many are beneficial (in terms of value
> added/helpful).

That's a great article. Thanks for referencing it. There are an
increasing number of mainstream analysts raising alarms, though none
of them appear on CNBC.

> From my understanding the Shia are less fundamental about Islam,
> so maybe it's in the world's best interest that they win. But the
> choice is like having to choose death by knife or gunshot.

> Will the younger generations of Western Civilization submit to or
> resist Islam?

That's an interesting observation, but I think that this distinction
is being perceived for generational reasons. Iran's Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei is certainly about as hardline as anyone
from al-Qaeda, but Iran's younger generation, in an Awakening era, are
resisting many of the tenets of the 1979 Great Islamic Revolution. On
the other hand, Sunni jihadists are hardline, but younger generations
in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, in a Crisis era, are adopting Islamist
beliefs.

The younger generations in the West will not submit to any form of
Islam, but keep in mind that the main war will be against the Chinese.

> To disillusioned Norwegian -- Why do you think the politicians
> appear to be so willing to let foreigners into their country and
> allow the immigrants to destroy the country and the
> culture?

Here's my response to you and to others who ask this type of question:

Suppose you were King of Europe. What would you do? Deport all the
Muslims? Lock them up in camps? Close the borders to Syrian women
and children fleeing starvation and bloody massacres? Sink their
boats and let them drown in the Mediterranean? What would you do, and
why would what you would do be better than what the neo-Nazis would
do?

[John]

> * Studies show most European countries, especially low population
> countries such as Norway, Denmark and Sweden will become muslim
> majority country in 30 years if current pre 2012 immigration trend
> continue. As you have explained with the civil war genocide
> between muslims this estimation is too conservative as the number
> of muslim refugees will exponentially increase as genocide
> continue and spread. This is a real threat to ethnic indo-european
> Peoples/tribes.

> * You often comment how generational crisis trigger inter-ethnic
> war in Africa and South-East Asia, will not this happen in Europe
> as well between the new ethnic groups as tensions increase? Isn't
> it already happening at a slow pace?

Historically, European world wars have been between Christians --
Germans versus French, Protestants versus Catholics, Orthodox
Christians versus Catholics and Protestants -- though there have also
been wars between Catholics and Jews, and between Christians and
Turks. I would expect a new European war to mainly be about those
same elements, with the effects of Syria and African refugees playing
a small part.

> * As you commented on the PEGIDA protests, the mainstream
> conservative parties like Angela Merkel "Christian Democratic
> Union of Germany" are attacking the protest as slander, and even
> you attribute neo-nazi image of these protest. This is false,
> neo-nazi=neo national socialist and not traditional European
> conservative, European conservatism is built on Locke principles,
> not the synthesis of Marx and occult thule/ostara theology. When
> mainstream conservative parties attack conservative rallies such
> as PEGIDA it only drives normal non-racist anti-immigration Groups
> With legitimate concerns of the future of their countries further
> to the nationalist parties.

PEGIDA isn't a bunch of philosophers sitting around the fireplace.
It's a growing movement, now with thousands of Germans, shouting
"Germany for Germans!" This is EXACTLY the type of xenophobia that
occurred in the 1930s, and it's EXACTLY the kind of xenophobia that
the 1957 Treaty of Rome was designed to keep from ever happening
again, and now it IS happening again.

Norway bears an enormous burden after the actions of Anders Brevik,
and I'm sure that I don't have to remind you that he was Christian.

I'm developing a concept called the "psychotic dog whistle," which
refers to remarks made by politicians that everyone ignores except
for psychotics who take them as a sign to take violent action.

So, for example, in America in 2012 when Teamsters Union leader James
Hoffa declares "civil war" against Tea Partiers as he's introducing
Barack Obama for a speech, almost everyone ignores his rantings. But
when four days later Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 children in Sandy
Hook elementary school in Newtown, Ct., it's reasonable to ask whether
he was a psychotic responding to James Hoffa's dog whistle.

Similarly, when Anders Brevik killed 77 people in a bomb attack and
gun rampage in 2011, it's reasonable to ask whether he was a psychotic
responding to the psychotic dog whistle demands of some pre-Pegida
xenophobic movement.

Another example is the recent shooting in NY City of two policemen,
evidently incited by racist buffoons like Al Sharpton, with the full
cooperation of unprincipled politicians like Bill DeBlasio and Barack
Obama. Their remarks were good examples of psychotic dog whistles.

The only difference with this week's events in Paris is that the
response is to jihadist calls for violence that are completely open
(not dog whistles), but the results are just as deadly.

> * There is a growing polarization between left and right in
> Europe, to the point where it will end up as Hungary with
> consensus politics being a thing of the past, the side that is not
> in majority Power, as Democracy is tyranny of the majority will
> have no other option that to attack the legitimate democratically
> government legislatively or violently. Just as there is a coming
> ethnic war, is there not a coming New left-right war replaying the
> Spanish Civil War but this time across most countries of Europe?

Exactly what form the next European war will take is impossible to
predict. But if it's analogous to the Spanish Civil War, then it will
be Christian versus Christian.

[gerald]

John-- why does one kill? -- to survive and have you children outlive the enemy-- same as it ever was.

[Trevor]

Right now, I'm noticing the media looks like they're willing to simply do as instructed. I've been listening to numerous pundits in both America and Europe saying the best way to prevent these types of things is to simply not post or say anything that offends Muslims.

The public as a whole, though... their reaction is very different. In France, close to 75% percent of their population have a negative view of Muslims and Islam. In Germany, it's about 60%. About an equal number believe that Islam cannot adapt to western values. In the United States, only 27% of the population view Muslims in a favorable light.

Tensions are growing on both sides, and I'm watching the news to see if anyone in France or elsewhere in Europe launch any retaliatory attacks towards their Muslim minority. Certainly a lot of the comments advocate such actions. "For every Christian/Westerner they kill, we should murder one Muslim." Other advocate burning down every mosque in Europe, encouraging more actions like what we saw in Sweden and throwing all of them out of the country, even ones who were born in European countries and considered citizens. On the other side, many Muslims support punishing those who publish cartoons of Muhammad.

I may not have been watching trend lines as long as Generational Dynamics has, but my own independent research is noting that attitudes are hardening on both sides. You've got hotheads on both sides calling for blood and while most will confine themselves to words, you only need a few. It's also a contrast to our attitudes about other nations, such as Russia. In that case, while we don't particularly like or trust one another, there's not a lot of outright hatred. When it comes to relationships with Muslims, though, I see much more hostility. I have some prejudices myself, although I do my best to ignore them.

[gerald]

China will save western civilization by destroying Islam
China will not play pussy foot with Islam

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
The earliest known expression of this concept is found in a Sanskrit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_enemy_ ... _my_friend

Napoleon Bonaparte once said of China, "Let her sleep, for when she wakes, she will shake the world." --- China does not like Islam, China is 20% of the worlds population.
Do you want to side with Islam or China?

Interesting.

[Guest]

And previously John had written:

NoOneImportant wrote:
>" I can't stress forcefully enough that Islam is not a
> religion... it is a mind set."


Islam is just as much a religion as Christianity is. Or, if you like,
Christianity is also just an ideology, in view of Christian Nazis who
kill Jews, or Irish Protestants who kill Catholics.

John, on most occasions, idea wise, we are in sync. Here we shall have to agree to disagree.

Grew up in Dearborn, MI - largest Muslim community in the U.S. The high school I attended was 30% Muslim - now it's 100% Muslim. Developed an unfavorable attitude first hand - Muslims are routinely strident, belligerent, and combative. After high school, I lived in Turkey for a year - at the time Turkey was the most moderate of the Muslim countries. Living in a Muslim country made me understand what I saw in high school. I can remember leaving Ankara in 1967 looking out the airplane's window thinking: "... no one will believe what I tell them about this place... God help the world if these people ever get money...." That was over 45 years ago, and now they have the money to buy arms, and explosives, i.e. the means to carry out their mentality; and there is no longer a powerful moral America with the will to stop them.

Muslims are a problem wherever they lite. Philippines, Timore, Miramar, India, Kashmir, China, Russia, Israel, Britain, France, Nigeria, Thailand, Kenya, et al. Virtually every airplane hijacking since 1970 has been by Muslims, not Christians. Airline hijacking are now a thing of the past, as on 9/11, Muslim hijackers slaughtered three airplane loads of innocent people; thus there will be no more hijackings, only crashes as those on board airliners now understand Muslims. The only time Muslims seek freedom and tolerance is when they are are a significant minority; when they achieve a significant plurality, or majority it is their way or the sword, they have no compunction regarding impressing their will - Sharia Law - upon all. They tolerate nothing, it's Allah, or die - it's Sharia for all. Muslims believe that anyplace Muslims have occupied is theirs forever, anyplace Muslims have prayed is theirs forever. Islam begins by enslaving half of all humanity, the reducing to the status of chattel of half of all the human race (women, and children). The age of "consent" for a female child is 9 years old for a Muslim. They are not "just like us."

And Christianity is certainly not without issues, but here we are discussing the differences between Christianity and Islam. The difference between Christianity, and Islam is that the embrace of Christianity is voluntary, with no direct physical harm, or ill consequences suffered if one rejects the conversion. As recent events have made clear, in Islam the conversion is not voluntary; it's convert, or the sword - the conversion is coerced and once converted, should you desire to exit Islam, it is a capital offense subjecting you to death. The only way that the two systems of thought may only be seen as morally equivalent is if you are the one holding the sword, doing the beheading - the beheador, and not the beheadee, if you will (sorry a bit of gallows humoresque, just couldn't help myself ).

The 2015 top ten list of countries that persecute Christians is North-Korea, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, Eritrea, and Nigeria - all except North Korea are Muslim countries. http://www.breitbart.com/national-secur ... pulations/
Don't believe in the repressiveness of Islam, try to take a Bible into one of these countries.

Further:
There are no occasions of suicide Christian bombers.
There are no murders performed by murderers screaming: "Jesus Christ is great", as they slaughter the innocent, and helpless.
There are no occasions of Christians hijacking airliners and flying them into occupied office buildings.
There are no Christian terrorist training camps.
There a zero occasions of Christians slaughtering the non-believer, by enticing children to execute suicide attacks.
There are no occasions of Christians paying the families of suicide jehadi for their children's death.
And perhaps, most importantly for each of us individually, as noted above, you are not subject to execution should you decide to leave the faith.

While Christianity has it's dark chapters, those are not taking place now. At this moment the Christian Church is as was given to us through the Enlightenment and to a somewhat lesser degree by the American Revolution (the inherent value of life, honesty, the rule of law,personal freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and many more, among others). In that entity - the church - should you desire to believe you are free to embrace that belief; should you reject that belief, you are free to leave without harm; your choice affects no one but the person making the choice, and you are free to exercise that choice also without fear to your person. The two cultures are in competition for the hearts of men. One seeks to convince, the other to coerce. The choice, as noted in my original post, is yours; one will kill you if you make the "wrong" choice, one will not.

Yes Northern Ireland is a sectarian Christian strife, and as with all extremist conflicts it was brutal. But even Northern Ireland may be viewed in the light of a historical political power struggle between the Irish, and the British. As for the Nazi's, as you know, they never espoused a Christian basis, like Communism, Nazism was atheistic. The Nazi's executed almost 2000 Catholic Priests in the Kamps, and hundreds of Protestant pastors.

As a brief aside, is interesting to note that the world is still evolving, as we (the world) has yet to reach a quiescent population equilibrium, a condition that must at some future point be reached (presuming that we don't eliminate ourselves).

On this topic we will just have to agree to differ.



MarvyGuy wrote:

I prefer the word “Fundamentalist” over “Radical” though since in reality the former is correctly showing that the letter of the Koran and relevant writings are being adhered to while the latter implies someone on a fringe. Radical Islam is fundamental Islam and anything else is apostate to the fundamentalist. I also don’t understand why Western media and gov’t downplay a lot of this – so as John has detailed 2 or 3 incidents of muslim driving car into a crowd in France and each time the French papers state that it was a lunatic lone wolf off their meds (Fort Hood work place violence).

Marvy, in so far as we are discussing Islam, the term fundamentalist is apt. What I outlined in my original post was a generic description of the radicalization of a society. The first occasion in print is found in Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, in The Third Book, line 82-83. He describes the inversion (radicalization) of society where good and evil become inverted. In that description the more barbaric the act the more wildly acclaimed the merit of the "victory." In societies so plagued, the good are the first to be eliminated as weaklings, their morality, honesty, character is despised, deprecated, and viewed as a weakness, a weakness that needs to be eliminated for the sake of the struggle. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao followed this tact generally. The result is always the same: the brutalization of a people, a brutalization made possible by wholesale authority sanctioned murder until the society is "cleansed." At some point sanity always returns and grief, and remorse are the inevitable residue of the momentary decent into monstrous barbarism - generational memory.

[NoOneImportant]

Sorry, botched the name on the above post.

NoOneImportant

[Guest]

I think a big part of the problem is that Christianity in Europe is dead. America is close behind. There is no moral code left in the West. As a true beliver, I see my beliefs being mocked openly in the press and on television. People live like pigs. No wonder Islam draws in the dislillusioned. What else is there? A morally bankrupt society is a dead man walking.

[John]

> While Christianity has its dark chapters, those are not taking
> place now. At this moment the Christian Church is as was given to
> us through the Enlightenment and to a somewhat lesser degree by
> the American Revolution (the inherent value of life, honesty, the
> rule of law,personal freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of
> religion, and many more, among others).

This is where your argument contradicts itself.

You claim that Christianity and Islam are fundamentally different in
that Islam isn't even a religion -- it's an ideology. To support that
claim in practice you would have to prove not only that Christianity
and Islam have had different cumulative outcomes throughout history,
but also that Christianity could never return to a new "dark chapter"
in the future.

I claim you have no hope of proving either of those. All you can hope
to prove is that AT THE PRESENT TIME Islam is producing different
outcomes than Christianity. And the latter may in fact be true, as
the examples you've given illustrate. But that means that Islam and
Christianity are both religions, and differences in outcome are only
temporal.

Why would such temporal differences exist? For the answer to that,
we look to a generational analysis.

WW II is still remarkably fresh in the minds of most Christians. How
it was possible for the entire Christian German population to turn
into Nazis and create the Holocaust to exterminate Jews, but also to
turn on the Christian French population and also the Orthodox
Christian Russian population is still a matter of shame throughout the
world Christian community.

But there is no similar collective memory in the Muslim community.
For Muslims, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire was in the far more
distant past than WW II, and was not a cause for shame among Muslims,
but a cause for shame among Europeans, including Christians and Jews.
Furthermore, the loss of the Istanbul Caliphate is a gaping hole in
the Muslim psyche.

That brings us to Iran's Great Islamic Revolution and the Iran/Iraq
war (1979-1988). This was a generational crisis war largely in the
Shia Muslim community. The problems that you described as Muslim
problems are actually almost always Sunni Muslim problems. So your
argument about Islam falls apart even when you consider temporal
differences between Shia and Sunni Islam.

Finally, as another counterexample to the uniqueness of Islam, the
shame of WW II does not extend to the Buddhist community, and the
Buddhists in Burma, led by a Buddhist monk, are massacring innocent
Muslim women and children, razing entire villages. The Muslims under
greatest attack are Rohingya immigrants, but the Buddhists have even
attacked Muslim villages that have existed for hundreds of years.

[Contrarianoutlook]

Historically, European world wars have been between Christians --
Germans versus French, Protestants versus Catholics, Orthodox
Christians versus Catholics and Protestants -- though there have also
been wars between Catholics and Jews, and between Christians and
Turks. I would expect a new European war to mainly be about those
same elements, with the effects of Syria and African refugees playing
a small part.

Please explain these elements? Because religion is not a dominant factor in the lives of Europeans anymore even though it has statistically been the case, most Europeans do not identify as christian.

PEGIDA isn't a bunch of philosophers sitting around the fireplace.
It's a growing movement, now with thousands of Germans, shouting
"Germany for Germans!" This is EXACTLY the type of xenophobia that
occurred in the 1930s, and it's EXACTLY the kind of xenophobia that
the 1957 Treaty of Rome was designed to keep from ever happening
again, and now it IS happening again.

Norway bears an enormous burden after the actions of Anders Brevik,
and I'm sure that I don't have to remind you that he was Christian.

So now all whites are christians and all crimes made by whites are crimes of christianity?

That's not intellectually honest, Anders Breivik never considered himself a christian, didn't have any relationship With God or Jesus and didn't care for the Bible, as he stated himself he wanted to use Christianity as a vehicle from which to launch a ethnic war. And Anders Breivik killed white teenagers for the most part, socialist teenagers in addition to blowing up government Offices. Norway doesn't have any burden after the actions of Anders Breivik, and specifically not Christianity as he was not a christian. I understand you are American and therefore have not taken the time to study Breivik case and the fact that he was a socialist himself as he even gave the communist salute during his trial and was a member of the socialist masonic lodge of Norway.