Bruce Bawer lives in Norway and has lived in The Netherlands. He has seen the creeping Islamization of Europe in chilling detail, and he has now chronicled it in While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West From Within. This book is essential reading -- where Eurabia explicates the theory, Bawer shows that theory being put into harrowing practice.
Here's a review of Bawer's book from the Philadelphia Inquirer:
If the ongoing "Battle of Khartoon" (let's give it some historical resonance) proves anything, it's that many otherwise well-educated Westerners remain illiterate about Islam.According to the Wall Street Journal, the editors of Denmark's Jyllands-Posten newspaper didn't understand when they published their visual bombshells that some strains of Islam (but not all) oppose depiction of Muhammad. Consider that just one gap in knowledge that new books like Bruce Bawer's While Europe Slept help close....
Bruce Bawer's While Europe Slept, published this month, provides an extraordinarily timely and incisive complement to such works. His topic is far fresher, one rarely explained to Americans because of our shrinking coverage of Europe: the astounding growth of Muslim communities there over the last 30 years, and how they interact with traditionally Christian societies.
Bawer, a gay, neoconservative American literary critic from New York who has lived in Amsterdam (now more than half non-Dutch) and, since 1997, in Oslo, energetically reports here what happens between the terrorist incidents that prod mainstream American media to brief coverage: the everyday tensions of a Europe that, for the first time in many centuries, must face substantial Islamic populations and ambitions.
In Bawer's view, Western Europe is becoming a "house divided against itself." On the one hand, the educated European elite maintains an unshakable "belief in peace and reconciliation through dialogue," a faith (their only remaining faith) that every issue can be resolved without violence.
Read it all.
Well, the muslims are certainly winning the demographic battle.
The ONLY solution is the complete deportation of all muslims from the West. Let them go back to the places where they can practice their barbaric sharia.
From the review: "Islam, we're often reminded these days, means "submission" in Arabic. Enlightenment, we should equally remember, means replacing half-baked notions and myths with facts."
Great quote, even if that's not exactly what the Enlightenment has managed to do. God matters after all; "facts" have proven to be a measly substitute, in my opinion.
The book sounds great (as do others the reviewer mentioned). I'm on my way to Amazon.
The book is great. A must read. Buy it if you haven't, and if you are European, buy 3, to give away the other 2 to your friends. Non-PC but never hateful, Bawer really makes Europeans themselves look in the mirror and think again: not just about their blindness about the demographic and cultural Jihad, but also about their generally stupid and ethnic-nationalist, racist-while-PC attitude to all foreigners, Muslim or non-Muslim: keeping them at distance and romanticising them as exotic and permanently alien, not allowing and not wanting them to fully integrate; at the same time accepting anything they do that can be classified as "culture" - and blindly believing that all this will not result in a bloody conflict.
That attitude of the Europeans forms a perfect counterpart to pro-sharia Islam, as a recipy for disaster: the segregation-with-laissez-fair-multiculturalism of the European elites fits the jihadist goals perfectly well while it annoys the immigrants who actually do want to integrate. In most of Europe, pushing away all foreigners from mainstream society and at the same time keeping up the PC appearances is preferred to making a distinction between immigrants with different attitudes and to facing the truth about the Jihad.
Can't understand the label of "neoconservative" in the review though. Bawer does not seem particularly conservative to me. He actually talks about Islam as Europe's "religious Right", trying to convince liberals that it is much worse than the Christian Right that he has criticized before.
Also, can't see what the reviewer means by asking, rhetorically: "To whom does any country's physical territory belong? Those who have been there longest? A simple majority? The best-educated?" - as if he's questioning the right of Europeans to even try to keep Europe un-Islamic?
Sadly, Americans are so insular that they are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe. When informed of Europe's quandary, most people I encounter just shrug. They have little concept of historical imperatives; e.g., how important Western Europe has been to the USA in the 20th century in our struggles against Hitler and Soviet Imperialism.
Additionally, our strategic planners are always behind the curve when it comes to forsight. By the end of the century, Europe very well may be a Muslim-majority, nuclear-armed, mortal enemy of the USA. We better start looking elsewhere in the world for future allies...Latin America, India (bravo Mr Bush for your recent diplomatic efforts), and even China.
I've been saying it for years and I'll repeat: Europe is a goner...the demographic genie has been let out of the bottle. Mass expulsion is the only means of reversing it, and it will be a cold day in hell before such a draconian solution is ever resorted to.
"the educated European elite maintains an unshakable "belief in peace and reconciliation through dialogue,"
There's that bogey-man again, the "elite". I thought the societies of Western Europe and North America were democracies. But apparently, according to Spencer, Hugh, and Bawer et al., they are not: they are elitocracies. Apparently, 97% of the "ordinary people" are Jihad Watching type folks who agree that Islam is a threat and must be stopped, but only a tiny percentage of "elites" are suppressing that knowledge and the will that would go with it. Since when did the West cease being a democratic? I never got the memo.
No, a far more likely explanation is that millions upon millions of ordinary people share this PC attitude about Islam. Oh, but then it would no longer be some "elitist" problem we face with easy targets at which to fingerpoint.
From The Undercurrent, an independent student newspaper distributed on several campuses:
Maybe, just maybe, there is a stronger undercurrent of free speech left on our campuses than we realize. After all, it was free speech that I remember in my "leftist" university days during the Vietnam War that empowered us to speak out against the government, which as the "rightist" tried to suppress free speech and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Now it seems the leftist refuse to acknowledge free speech of those it opposes, and it is now the rightist who are its staunch defenders.
Dr Pepper says: "I thought the societies of Western Europe and North America were democracies. But apparently, according to Spencer, Hugh, and Bawer et al., they are not: they are elitocracies. Apparently, 97% of the "ordinary people" are Jihad Watching type folks who agree that Islam is a threat and must be stopped, but only a tiny percentage of "elites" are suppressing that knowledge and the will that would go with it. Since when did the West cease being a democratic? I never got the memo."
And misses the point. The 97%, the rest of us, are not Jihad Watchers though the cartoon issue may have done wonders, at least in the UK where I am. All those demonstrators calling for death in all directions - and the cartoons weren't even published here.
And the non-publication is is an example of the elite attitude. Be nice to the poor persecuted Muslims. Ensure that the papers and the TV only present them in the best possible light. Bring in laws to suppress those who try and point out the truth about them.
Most of the 97% will not read this site. Nor will they read the Koran or Shariah books or Bat-Yeor or Andrew Bostom (whose book probably will not be published here). It's too much to hope for. But if what was percolating through our society wasn't bland, mendacious and dhimmified, we would all have more chance.
As it is, I suspect some people are starting to see that Muslims aren't such lovely bringers of peace and harmony. The July 7 bombers were Muslim however much the elite tries to put the blame on the British army in Iraq or on Israel.
Dr Pepper wrote:
"There's that bogey-man again, the "elite". I thought the societies of Western Europe and North America were democracies. But apparently, according to Spencer, Hugh, and Bawer et al., they are not: they are elitocracies. Apparently, 97% of the "ordinary people" are Jihad Watching type folks who agree that Islam is a threat and must be stopped, but only a tiny percentage of "elites" are suppressing that knowledge and the will that would go with it. Since when did the West cease being a democratic? I never got the memo.
No, a far more likely explanation is that millions upon millions of ordinary people share this PC attitude about Islam. Oh, but then it would no longer be some "elitist" problem we face with easy targets at which to fingerpoint. "
Well, we live in a meritocratic polyarchy, that is, we live in a system where the democraticaly elected rulers are influenced by a swarm of elites and groups of elites, may they be social, economical or military elites. Where is the power of the people in that? Well, they're simply the ons who get to decide who are the rulers, and if they deserve to stay in office. Thats all. Thats your "democracy".
And how is it meritocratic? Well, those who gets to be an elite are those, apparently, that deserve it, through efforts, merit and skills. Thats how the story goes. For more info, read Giovanni Sartori.
Also, in Huntington's latest book, "Who are We", he goes to great lenght to show that there is a huge difference between what the people wants, and what the elites desir. The elites are cosmopolitant, they travel alot, they're rich. Most of them are only citizen on paper: in reality, they're citizens of the world. They can't possibly have the same opinions and values than the people who are much poorer and who dont get to travel much.
Therefore, if you want to understand where our society is going, understand where our elites want our society to go, since they're obiviously the ones who hold the most influence. Also, realise that our economical and social elites are liberal and multicultural, much, much more than the population. Which might explain the state our of society.
Lisa wrote
"Maybe, just maybe, there is a stronger undercurrent of free speech left on our campuses than we realize. After all, it was free speech that I remember in my "leftist" university days during the Vietnam War that empowered us to speak out against the government, which as the "rightist" tried to suppress free speech and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Now it seems the leftist refuse to acknowledge free speech of those it opposes, and it is now the rightist who are its staunch defenders."
Which goes to show that nobody likes to be proved wrong, wherever they are on the political spectrum. And this apply to everyone, including you. But not me, I'm that special.
But more seriously, an adventage that the left holds is that its censorship is institutionalized under laws against hate speech, difamation and racisme. While they're right, in my opinion, they make the discussion incredibly difficult when you want to talk about a certain muslim problem.
Cornelius wrote:
"I've been saying it for years and I'll repeat: Europe is a goner...the demographic genie has been let out of the bottle. Mass expulsion is the only means of reversing it, and it will be a cold day in hell before such a draconian solution is ever resorted to."
Mass expulsion will never happen again in Europe or anywhere else in the West. We'Ve been too much traumatised by the Nazi regime and now we composed of too many minorities for us to think we could do any sort of ethnic cleansing. Its both wrong and impossible. And if we ever go that far, what will we have left to defend? Social lberalism? It will be dead by then. That scrap of land you call your proprety? your skin color? your religion or ethnicity? Then again, its not worth fighting for, not anymore. Or it shouldn't be.
Rahel wrote:
"Also, can't see what the reviewer means by asking, rhetorically: "To whom does any country's physical territory belong? Those who have been there longest? A simple majority? The best-educated?" - as if he's questioning the right of Europeans to even try to keep Europe un-Islamic?"
What, you think its a dumb question? Thats because it is. But dumb questions are the most fundamental. Go ahead and try to answer it.
Europe belongs too... europeans. Duh. But whats an european? Someone born there, and anybody capable to getting and living there long enogh to get citizenship. Which mean, being an european is not about culture anymore, its about "being there". And who's there in majority? "real" europeans. In 150 years, who will be there in majority? "real" europeans, again. But who will they be? Probably mainly muslims. But how is that wrong? The question is, in virtu of what principle should a people give themselve the rights to preserve the society they have, when the dreaded changes are demographic, that is, slow, subtile... and probably peaceful? Yes, you had a couple of race riots and of race-oriented crimes against whites by muslims in Europe, but those are a minority. The real changes that matters, that is, the laws and customs of society, are peaceful, and therefore, unstopable in a democratic society.
Sadly, Americans are so insular that they are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe. When informed of Europe's quandary, most people I encounter just shrug.
Maybe Americans shrug because we are aware of the rampant Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism that exists in Europe.Instead of embracing their friends and allies in America and Isreal, Europe chose to sleep with the enemy.Are you really surprised that Americans are indifferent to Europe's plight? You reap what you sow.
Elliot, it's time to prove you wrong.
The elites aren't really that cosmopolitan, they exist in a rarefied atmosphere that is in effect, insular and segregationist, not in the ethnic, religious or racial sense as such term is generally understood, but in privileged isolationist sense. They never see the bulk of humanity for what it really is. They may claim they are world citizens, after all they play golf on the finest resorts in countries that we may regard either as friend or foe, i.e., Dubai, Indonesia, India, Japan, Jamaica or the Bahamas. But they never see the country, or interact with its people or interact with its populace. After all, all those resorts no matter where they lie, are all identical, all golf courses are the same 18 holes. It is really moneyed ghetto-ization behind armed gated communities, they have no other experience.
For a while, I had a job that involved extensive foreign travel. I was shipped off to endless meetings to both heaven and hell. At first I thought this employer paid prospect of world travel would be interesting, enabling me to finally see many of the places I only dreamed of. I did make it to many of those places, along with quite a few hell-holes. I recall, before embarking on yet another trip, my secretary remarked how exciting it must be to see all those different places. Without hesitation, I replied, no, it wasn't exciting. All I really got to see was a hotel room and a conference room, and they all look alike. After spending 12-15 hours on a flight, getting shuttled off to a hotel, sitting in a hotel conference room, eating the same hotel food, seeing the same trinkets in the hotel gift shop, getting shuttled back to an airport, sitting another 12-15 hours on a plane back home, you realize that you can not tell the difference between being in Delhi or Des Moines.
I have been to many of the major cities of Europe, Asia, and the Americas, yet I do not sense in one iota that I have seen or experienced the world. I feel more cosmopolitan in the immigrant multi-ethnic neighborhoods of U.S. cities than I ever did on any of my travels. I hear more languages, and see more foreign print, in a single day in San Francisco then I ever did in my world travels.
I have conversational ability in both Italian and German, and have been able to travel to both Italy and Germany on my own time and dime. While in Italy, I felt like I was among extended family and long lost relatives (I am of Italian descent, 2nd generation). In Germany, I was more detached from the people with whom I spoke but it still felt like I was vacationing in heavily Germanic Wisconsin, as we used to do when I was a kid living in Chicago, it was so similar.
Isolationism is not the same as cosmopolitanism. The elites may like to think so, but through the blindness of insularity they are only deluding themselves.
Roxane,
Fair point you've just made.
But my I suggest that for many, it is more a case of willful disconnect with anything that doesn't effect them in a day-to-day context. It's as if the atmosphere in our schools and places of business is so stultifying that people have become apolitical just to survive (a charateristic of totalitarian societies).
An anecdote: Back in the early 90s when Reginald Denny was brutalized by a black mob on national television after the verdict was announced in the Rodney King beating trial...my sister - who worked then for a large corporation and is very outspoken - told me no one uttered a word on the subject the next day...the fear of saying something that might bring trouble - something un-PC - was so acute that the silence was instructive.
My sister expressed her outrage to blank expressions and "no comment"(s). No one wanted to talk about it. Of course there was no comparable reticence after the Rodney King beating had been broadcast the year before.
People have been effectively conditioned by the powers that be in America over the last 2 decades. The bogeyman is racism. It IS the new McCartyism.
McCarthyism...(God I'm tired of my spelling errrors)
Cornelius,
I hope you ain't using that Great American's name as a slur. You're half-right. But you better check your facts before you start slinging mud on McCarthy.
And checking facts means more than visiting Horowitz's website.
The conditioning has been going on for more than 2 decades. And McCarthy(and many others)started scratching the surface of it, that's why he was destroyed-- he was starting to uncover the real destroyers of America. Goldwater figured it out too. Once he lost, that was the end.
And Dr. Pepper, it is the Elite who run the world. Duh. Follow the "money". Actually, WHO CONTROLS THE MONEY(the World's money). They got us by the balls. We've been sold out. They OWN us. Don't think so? Hehe.
Read and deal with the cognitive dissonance:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~agourley/livelife1.htm
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=home
http://www.barefootsworld.net/index.html
http://unitedelite.net/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates72.html
"Barefoots world" has alot of interesting and useful info. Though last time I checked he was somewhat ignorant about Islam, but I e-mailed him with the facts.
Another link for independant, un-pacified Americans:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/tripwire.html
And:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/bftw1.html
Hell, Bush is RELATED to Kerry. Hahahahaha, how stupid can we be???
Thanks for those links Kentim. Glad to see you're still active.
"Elliot, it's time to prove you wrong."
Haha, stop speaking like this, you make it sound as if I spend my every waking moments spreading lies. But I'm just not smart enough for that yet, you must be confusing me for another member.
"The elites aren't really that cosmopolitan, they exist in a rarefied atmosphere that is in effect, insular and segregationist, not in the ethnic, religious or racial sense as such term is generally understood, but in privileged isolationist sense..."
I agree with you on this point,and you said it very well. The elites, the "Davos people", are, by their way of life, segregated and sheltered from how the masses thinks.
We both agree on this, but we dont see eye to eye as to if this way of life is actualy cosmopolitan or not. In my above post, I used cosmopolitanism to mean "universal culture", that is, the belief system that the world's elite share in common, which is a belief and commitment in liberal capitalism and sometime liberal democracy that can be at odds with common sense and with what the people believe themselves believe in.
Which is not what the word cosmopolitan realy mean, it seems...
Hum... okay, I got it. I'll get my coat...
Bah, I said the word "believe" twice. Where's the edit button? Where's our forum damnit?
Hi, Elliot, glad to see you survived your run-in with the "teacher" awhile back.
There is only one solution and we all know what that is. I predict it will be put into practice within a few years.
You can see the arrogance and stupidity of Moslems; the Kartoon Kerfluffle, for instance, is a good example. Violence, bizarre demands, etc. Since we can absolutely count on more bombings by Moslems in Europe, the average European will eventually wake up completely to the danger and to the fact the national leaders have sold them out.
I'm an optimist. I believe this awakening will happen before it is too late.
But when it does, it will be savage and quick.
Or not at all.
"The ONLY solution is the complete deportation of all muslims from the West. Let them go back to the places where they can practice their barbaric sharia."
Right,nice idea. Several scenarios, mix as desired:
1. Muslims leave Islam, using taqiyya to stay on and just continuing the demographic rise.
2. Major civil unrest/wars. And not just muslims on their side but many non-muslims for many reasons, too.
3. Boycotting from the oil producers - no oil, no economy.
I could go on, but it gets too depressing.
Seymour, how do you see your scenario? A savage and quick 'final solution' of murdering several million people who happen to be of one religion? Sounds familiar...
Lillith-
Deporting a tumor is not "ethnic cleansing", it is saving your life.
You can be destroyed by inclarity as much as by an enemy.
Mixing metaphors may be fatal.
A few simple questions might make it seem do-able:
1) Is Islam an Imperialistic dogmatic intolerant tyranny at its core?
2) If Muslims truly believe in the brutal tenets of their faith, are they not then sworn soldiers for the jihad, and the "holy war" to overthrow all of the free societies in the world? (However much they smile as they implement it?)
3) Why were such self-declared enemies of advanced Civilization (as we know it) (and I love itt) ever allowed to enter the West, except as temporary tourists, students or diplomats of legitimate national missions?
4) What do we gain from their presence but insecurity by their avowed mission to destroy of cultures, freedoms, religions and beliefs?
If repatriation of Islamic infil-traitors is to become "thinkable", the West will have to suffer more pain than it has.
We are not there yet.
The crazier and more terroristic and threatening and vicious Muslim extremists show themsleves to be, the more likely it is that people in the free world shall grow unwilling to permit this slow-motion invasion. And shall learn to completely distrust the majority of Muslim believers and their self-aggrandizing cult of the pedophile.
What they want is not what I want.
They want gobal servitude to one paralyzed idea.
I want the human mind free to correct itself forever.
Relativistic worries about "if we fight them we will become them" are puerile and silly.
To kill a guy trying to murder your child is not to become the same as a murderer.
A surgeon cutting a heart out for a transplant is not the same as an Aztec sacrificial "priest" tearing the same organ out with a similary sharp knife.
Intention changes everything.
The intention of Islam is to bring about a theocratic, permanent planetary concentration camp for our entire species.
Battling to stop this hell-on-earth may require a use of force that looks "the same", to the superificial eye, as that used by the tyrannical killers.
But it isn't.
You have to know the stakes.
The end of a free Civilization may be in our future if you won't fight hard enough to save it.
Think of our world as an infant in a cradle.
Would it be bad to kill someone who was getting ready to smash the infant's skull with a brick?
It's a shame Muslims have gotten hold of a book that drives them mad.
But I'm not going to apologize for defending myself from their "divine" lunacy.
Mass expulsion will never again happen in the West...it's both wrong and impossible.~
~History repeats itself. Why do you think expulsions would not happen again? Don't you think that when the moslems become the majority they will expel any who stand in their way? You think it is wrong to fight for a scrap of land to live on? Do you recommend moving away? Where to? And there is a whole generation coming up that has forgotten the nazi stories details.
What would be left to defend? How about freedom from dhimmitude? Should guilt about expelling( not ethnic murder) stop people from trying to preserve their way of life? Just roll over and let the moslem demographics take over? If in 150 years the moslems are the majority there will not be a true free live and let live democratic country left in Europe or anywhere else they reach majority. (Don't talk about Turkey- that isn't going to last.)
You ask How is that wrong? (~to give up Europe as it is today) Your decendants will curse your name for being foolish enough to let a great civilization go to ruin. Until all of your decendants are moslem and then they will not know your civilization ever existed. Do you think the moslem majority will play nice with the minorities once they no longer have to behave and appear civilized to the west? Why would they treat the minorities well then? Because it would be the right thing? In who's mind? Remember that the western way of being PC will be gone. There will be no treat the minority nice kind of thinking anymore. That will go when the words from the koran take over.
Do you think these demographic changes will be peaceful? Why would you think that? Because the people in the west have been conditioned not to fight back when shoved against the wall? Do you think that is what they should do to maintain peace? You seem to think the changes will be mostly peaceful? Why would you think that when they have never been peaceful in any moslem takeovers in the history of moslem expansion. Do you think this will be different? Why?? You need to read more history.
When the romans became civilized enough to be nice and allow immigrants to enjoy their cities and work and live in peace, it was only one generation before they were destroyed by those immigrants who had gained enough insider knowledge to help the invaders take over. Those invaders eventually changed their ways and the civilization rose again.
The moslems will not change their ways when they take over. They have the rule book that won't allow it. The immutable text that must be obeyed.
~ And elites travel in a way that the business traveler can only dream of. Their travel is different. And with money when things go bad you can escape and start over somewhere else. (Eventually, they will lose that option if the demographics keep going around the world in islams favor.) The average man on the street doesn't know what is going on because they don't have the leisure time that the elites have to learn about islamic history. Elites only meet up with the cream of the moslem crop and therefore they see no threat. Elite moslems are great at diplomacy and smoothing things out. They aren't in the streets with their neck veins popping screaming for your head. They are smart enough to just sit back and wait. Should you let them wait and say nothing?
~murdering several million people who happen to be of one religion? Sounds familiar...
Yeah, talk to hindus about the 80 million people slaughtered by the moslems. By Swords. Makes the nazi story sound almost tame.
profitsbeard~ agreed.
The moral equivalency just does not make sense to ANYONE who has read the history and can see what the future holds. They need to stop yakking and read the history of islam. Don't think history won't repeat itself. It does. The people living it (us) just rarely see it coming. Because most don't think history applies to today. There HAVE already been countries that have had demographic takeovers. Do some READING about what happened. You will not be surprised if you know islamic history. The takeover that is gradual has the same ending and not a peaceful middle on the way there.
Lillith:
I am not a prophet , so I have no idea about the exact scenario.
As for the rightness of it, a few comments. If Europeans wake up in time, they will realize that the Moslems among them are undigestable. You can do two things: nothing, or vomit them out of the civilized world.
Europeans will quickly realize that doing nothing means cultural suicide. This will be apparent because Moslems will become more and more demanding, demanding sharia, demanding polygamous marriages be recognized; demanding suppression of the Jews; demanding...well, you get the idea. They will attempt to force Europe into becoming a middle eastern country (as many others have written).
So, very soon, the Europeans will have to choose: do they want to live in the West or in Saudi Arabia.
They may decide to do nothing. Europeans can be very passive. But the opposite is also true.
As for similarites to the Nazi past, to which you allude: there are none. The Jews were in fact no threat. Moslems are a direct and mortal threat to the civilized world.
They have been for 1400 years.
Read about the fall of Constantinople for a taste of what is to come if we do nothing.
Borg said:
"You need to read more history"
And you need to read my post a second time. I simply asked why we should prevent a demographical change, if our model of society can guaranty that it will be peaceful, even if that change is the last thing this society does. I never said it was a good thing, I merely raised the question. Why defend what we've got? Why fight for the continuation of ou society, if you're not around to live in it? Do you even know why? Is it for your kids? you dont want them to live in under the muslims version of justice and peace? Why, 1 billion people already do it, who are you to say it is wrong and must be avoided? and if its only for your kids, then again it wont be enough, because people dont have kids anymore, and that is the root of the problem.
Your position is fine, but to hold it simply because "I dont like them muslims" is not good enough. You have got to be able to slay the argument of cultural relativism, or politicaly corectness, of tolerance at all cost and of multiculturalism. And so far, you have done none of those things. To have all of history to back your claims, along with a good understanding of the Koran and of our contemporary epoch and every news items in this site is a good start, but even that is not enough. Its only good to convince those already convinced. You have got to beat liberalism at its own game, for as long as liberalism stand, there will always be someone to say that they have the right to come here and practice whatever they want.
Profitsbeard and Seymour
I would love Europe to be free from Islamists. I'm just querying the practicalities. Even if Islam, in its current form, was proclaimed some kind of anti-democratic and forbidden political movement in some European countries, e.g.close to fascism, how do you get around taqiyya?
If only it were as simple as deporting people, but the scary thing is that the most radical ones seem to be 2nd and 3rd generation European Muslims.
I don't disagree with your ideas on a 'humanitarian' basis. There are plenty of thoroughly Islamic countries that should be glad to take Islamic enthusiasts, and surely they should be glad to go and live there. Australian Prime Minister John Howard has basically said so, and good on him!!
I just wish I could see a way for it to be done.
And my reference to Nazi Germany was about the idea of killing people, not deporting them. Seymour, I'm still not sure whether you, prophet or not, guess that Europeans will be scared/angry enough for a violent, killing reaction.
Hey, if you were a prophet, I wouldn't be able to draw this picture of you: :-)
Lillith-
I think it goes like this
[someone's version of the turban bomb cartoon as best I can remember it]:
*~@:~{>
__________________________________________________
P.S.-
I prefer the word "repatriation" to "deportation". (It sounds so much more re-patriotic.)
If our countries were not already degenerate and decadent, the "muslim problem" would not exist.
Blaming the muslims for being muslims is skirting the issue.
We do not have a "great civilization" right now. And it's becoming less "great" every day. Creature-comforts and trivial pursuits and attempting to maintain eternal adolescence(like Bill Clinton)is not conducive to creating or preserving a "great civilization".
-----------------------------
Elliot makes some very valid points, and shows a necessary depth of thought. His statements about relavitism are true. I have thought about those very same things, as in; what difference does it make?
But the argument against (contemporary) "liberalism"(a false label and corruption of language)is to name it for what it really is-- COLLECTIVISM. DECEPTION. A tool used for the enslavement of society and the world. As long as people blithely and blissfully accept "liberalism" at face-value without critical analysis or understanding of the ramifications in relation to the individual "self", they are sheep, child-like, looking to Big-Brother to take care of them. How pathetic.
The political construct of major parties is an illusion of choice, and a mind-trap. It's fixed, it distracts from the fact that both parties are Statist and Collectivist in ACTIONS and move towards the same ultimate goal. Emotional hot-button issues are window-dressing, grab peoples emotions and guess what? There is no right or wrong "truth" in that realm, emotion-based law is SUBJECTIVE, ARBITRARY, DICTATORIAL, and has zero relation to truth, facts, justice, or reality. Justice cannot exist without truth. It is rule by imagination, it is the destruction of logic and reason, it is demogoguery, and it leads to oppression. Mob-rule(and the mob can be decieved by the Elite above them), consensus, labeling(privileged groups or "enemies of the people"), this is not a "civilized society", this is induced surrender of the individual, of independant thought, and therefore a society that is easily exploited and enslaved.
The slaves of the Old South were fed and housed, they were allowed to pro-create, they had their basic survival-needs taken care of, of course it was a more restrictive slavery, but as long as they did'nt have a sadistic master, in the over-all scheme of things, it was'nt all that bad. We have a softer, more "humane" slavery today, but actually, enslavement of the MIND is worse than the old primitive enslavement of the body. Enslavement of the mind leads to willing submission of the body. While conversely, the mind can be used to free the body from the master. And our masters know this. That is why PSYCHOLOGY is their ultimate weapon.
----------------
And another thing, Hitler only developed the "final solution" after his attempts to make the Jews leave voluntarily, and then by deportation failed. Nobody wanted them, or very few of them. Then of course the war brought other realities into the situation, and things escalated towards oblivion.
Anyone who doesn't see why we should try to prevent a demographical change is an idiot.
Haven't you read anything that the many authors of recent books have been saying?
And your attributing "I dont like them muslims" to anyone by using quotes just proves your ignorant attitude and liberal sneering condescension.
Same old, same old. These Muslims want the caliphate.
*~@:~{>
Kentim! Superb!
Asalluma-laikum all
It was when the prophet was having a hard time in the fight to spread Islam and domestically. Apart from this he also had to deal with Jewish conspricies to not allow the spread of light.
It was at this time that Muhammed (saw) went to his favourite cave to pray for some light relief. And the engil gibreel (MABPWH) showed Muhd(pubh) a map of the flat earth...and showed all the greatness that was to be the future not only of the ME but the whole world.
Yeas...so Europe is not only for the Europeans ...it is for the muslims too....give it time...what elso do you have anyway....Let us all wait & see the gentle light of Islam shine over Europe. Peace
With all due respect, I think that the PC crowd is trying to avoid another holocaust; the next will involve muslims and they know it, smell it, see it, taste it and they want to prevent it at all costs. And, I agree.
However, the WWII Holocaust was born of islamic type ideology, through Hitler who studied and agreed with the islamic ideology to "exterminate the Jews". I can't recall any time that the Jews were instigating trouble back then... so much trouble as to cause their deliberate elimination.
However, muslim behavior today is a precursor to a big decision. What to do. You can only poke us in the nose so many times, when all of a sudden, you muslims find yourselves in deep, deep trouble.
I'm against a second holocaust against muslims. If the muslims are allowed to continue on their current path, and make a major strike against any Western target, a muslim holocaust might indeed ensue.
I am for internment. For the protection of innocent muslims and for the protection of innocent non-muslim civilians in the West who are faced DAILY with the muslim terrorist threat. If the muslims cannot control their own, then in order to avoid a second holocaust against themselves they should be protected by way of internment, and/or deportation to a muslim majority country.
I believe if a poll were taken, 95% of Western countries would agree with me.
By ProfitsBeard: Deporting a tumor is not "ethnic cleansing", it is saving your life.
You can be destroyed by inclarity as much as by an enemy.
Mixing metaphors may be fatal.
Profitsbeard, I love you. I really do.
Naseem? Do not dispair. For your salvation will come by way of an airplane! And then by sea! On a large boat! Headed toward the Persian Gulf. Where you will find your delusional islamic dreams come true, in an islamic country somewhere in the Middle East. Your citizenship won't save you. Your koranic rantings won't save you. The beginning of your salvation, and the salvation of your family as you flee the West in fear and with your heads hung low, will be in an airplane. How ironic.
Mark. My. Words.
Naseem, you're so funny - clearly just trying to clarify the Islamist lunacy for us. Thank you.
Just_Linda:
That's pretty clear.
Thanks.
"Dum spiro, spero."
(While I breathe, I hope.)
P.S.-
Pass this little turban bomb sigil on:
*~@:-{>
Thanks jsla, the symbolic "red pill" is beginning to clear the cobwebs from my brain(thank-god for the internet.)
http://www.arrod.co.uk/essays/matrix.php
-------------------
Passers-by may be interested to read a free on-line book that exposes the truth to the lie that "Big-business" is a polar opposite and bitter enemy of Communism/Socialism. It's about MONOPOLY and CAPTIVE MARKETS(not "Capitalism" or free trade/markets). Then consider "Globalization".
"Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
How western capitalists funded Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and the Soviet Union"
-- by Antony C. Sutton, 1976
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=BolshevikRev&Entity=WorldWar1
There is a mountain of easily accessible evidence that can be independantly ckecked.
"...Deporting a tumor is not "ethnic cleansing..."
From above.
Call it what you will:
Just get them out of Europe and Australia!
The world has always seen pogroms, mass-expulsions, ethnic cleaning, genocide. Worst of all the systematic extermination of all 'unbelievers' in lands conquered by Mohammedans.
Its payback time: Make sure we ship the PC-brigades, the hirelings and advocates for Islam, the quislings and the suckers for appeasement right out with the coffee-filters and the kaftans, with burkhas and hijabs and the mosques and the bones of their deceased, for we should give them no reason to ever come back...
The criminals should be deported or jailed (preferably on some remote god-forsaken place -- do the French still own Devil's Island?), and the ordinary peaceful but unassimilating Muslims should be paid to emigrate to the Islamic paradise of their choice. Make it a big payment, like $100,000 per adult passport, and get their passport up front before you give the money to them. Make them sign a contract disavowing all rights to live in the Western country they reside in.
$100,000 (or $200,000 per family) is a lot of money in Pakistan, Morocco or even Turkey -- a fortune.
Some will elect to stay behind of course, but those will be the more secular ones -- and with their numbers reduced the risk that they will revert to "real" Islam would be much less than it is today.
Then of course close all immigration and "asylum" to the Islamic countries.
Humane -- and much less expensive in the long run than a civil war.
My two cents.
I wish Robert would comment in this thread. His Jihadwatch thread on 'krazy komments' implies that he is against the concept of repatriation or deportation, and that we are bad for talking about it.
But surely, if non-muslim countries make it clear that they will never accept sharia and that anyone who wants it should leave, well then they should leave? No?
"...His Jihadwatch thread on 'krazy komments' implies that he is against the concept of repatriation or deportation, and that we are bad for talking about it..."
From the posting above.
How so?
Internment and deportations are very much the desired outcome and curse of action. Hugh Fitzgerald made that clear on many occasions, and I don't recall anything in RS writing stating that talking about it is 'bad' for the cause?
Lillith & shiek yer'mami-
Let's just rename "repatriation", etc:
The Encouragement of the Permanent Hadj.
How could any Mohammedan object to that?
Well, Robert writes "If you are interested in defending the West and the ideas of the equality of rights and dignity of all, do not play into the hands of our enemies by giving them ammunition with which they can try to discredit us."
So could repatriation of Islamists be part of equality and rights and dignity? I guess this thread is finished though.
Mass expulsion will never happen again in Europe or anywhere else in the West. We'Ve been too much traumatised by the Nazi regime and now we composed of too many minorities for us to think we could do any sort of ethnic cleansing. Its both wrong and impossible. And if we ever go that far, what will we have left to defend? Social lberalism? It will be dead by then. That scrap of land you call your proprety? your skin color? your religion or ethnicity? Then again, its not worth fighting for, not anymore. Or it shouldn't be.
Posted by: Elliot at March 3, 2006 04:23 PM
Damn Elliot, what do you cherish enough to defend?! You sound like a whipped dog, if dogs could talk.
It is sad to note that you have been thoroughly indoctrinated in cultural Marxism, which permeates your dialogue. "Ethnic cleansing" reminds me of "Islamophobia"; both are contrived and deceptive additions to our lexicon. You are a poster child for the Brave New World, the dystopia borne of government schools, materialism, consumerism, globalism, hedonism, and psychological conditioning.
You say nothing is worth fighting for so I assume life is meaningless to you. Have you ever contemplated suicide? I suffer from an occasional bout of depression and the "blues" but Elliot, you're pathetic. The hackneyed cliche "get a life" should be your personal motto.
What matters to people like you? What inspires you, enthuses you, motivates you, animates you? Have you always been so dispassionate? I have to tell you that there are many things I would fight for, my religion and my little scrap of land being two of them. Self-defense, self-preservation, and individualism are not "ethnic cleansing." If "minorities" are so precious that they must be preserved and protected at any cost, including the destruction of the majority, please define "equality", "racism", and "ethnic cleansing."
The Nazis perpetrated pogroms that targeted the Jews and other selected groups of people for extermination. The deportation of unassimilable, bellicose immigrants intent on the destruction of Western Civilization is not analogous to Nazi genocides.
The cosmopolitan "elites" who travel the world and mingle with the rich, powerful, and famous are not qualified to dictate how the unwashed masses should live their lives. They mingle with a small, select group of others like themselves in an insulated, isolated sphere that most of us will never see or experience. How could they possibly understand what life in the real world is like, or the trials and tribulations of the average person? Ambitious, vain, disassociated social engineers have always been around, eager to impose their utopian dreams on humanity, for humanity's own good, of course. They are more dangerous than serial killers. Do you need a wealthy, cosmopolitan politician or bureaucrat to tell you how to live? I don't.
The elites dont tell you how to live? thats great and all, but the policies that shape your society dont depend on you, but rather on them and their decisions.
As for marxisme, I never read a line of it. I always thought that the lietmotiv behind my thinking was liberal insteed of marxist, but hey, whatever.
As for the rest, I never, ever said that I didn't believed in defending my culture or civilisation. Heck, I rarely ever said what I really think here. No, insteed, I MERELY raised the question, as to WHY does it matter what happens to your culture and society? And you know why I raised those questions? Because if you can't justify the viceral and, yes, natural need to defend what you see as your culture, then, you will never be able to convince anyone thats not already convinced. And as such, your ideas wont matter, and they'll be useless.
I'll ask again, why does our society need to continue as it exist today, as opposed to accomodate muslims, which will represent a huge demographical part of our future anyway? Why why why? Do you even know it?!
OK, I'll try:
1. Because I don't want to wear the hijab, or to be molested and blamed for molestation if I don't wear it.
2. Because I want my gay friends to live in peace.
3. Because I value democracy.
4. Because I don't want the risk of any representation of life (i.e. most of western art) being destroyed.
5. Because I love music and Islam fundamentalists forbid it.
6. Because I don't want to pay jiyza.
7. Because I don't like sharia law.
Man, I could go on all day. Basically, because there is just about nothing about Islam that I'm prepared to live under!
Elliot, I was a little hard on you; I'm sorry. You just sounded so resigned, so defeated, so helpless. You don't have to study or read Marxism to be influenced by its dogma because it is the prevalent ideology of the left, and the left controls education and many other Western institutions, especially in the UK and Europe.
You see Elliot, cultural Marxism is an insidious, stealthy form of conditioning that controls the way people think. It's a form of brainwashing, mind control. Most people don't have a clue they are being manipulated. When children are fed a steady diet of left-wing bullshit from kindergarten through high school, they graduate with honors from the Academy of Cultural Marxism--- nice, obedient, compliant little politically correct, multiculturalist, moral relativist zombies. And I'm not trying to be cruel or mean but that is precisely the way you came across, like a zombie who has been conditioned not to buck the establishment. If I misunderstood you, I apologise.
If the dogma of cultural Marxism has been successfully inculcated in several generations of Europeans, then you are right--Islam will eventually dominate and control Europe because nobody will fight to defend a heritage and culture they have been taught is evil and inferior. When individualism is replaced by collectivism, freedom cannot exist. I wouldn't relish fighting and dying for the "state", but I wouldn't hesitate to fight for myself and my family and to defend what is rightfully mine. That includes not only my material possessions, but my God-given freedom.
Well, thats just too fra down the page to keep discussing. Maybe if we had a forum. I think I'll just make one, by harnessing the awesome power of invisionfree.com