Sunday, March 29, 2009

Muslims seek to further defile the White House

As if it weren't bad enough that we have a Muslim sympathizer --who attended Muslim school in Indonesia and recalls that one of the sweetest sounds from his early childhood was the Muslim morning call to prayer-- in the White House, now we learn of the "under the radar" effort by [empowered] Muslim community leaders, working in conjunction with the first Muslim member of Congress, Keith Ellison, to help install Muslims in key positions in the Obama Administration.

Now, don't get the wrong impression. I'm not at all surprised by this revelation. This is exactly what we should expect from Muslims living in America now that they have someone sympathetic to Islam and Islamites [serving] in the highest executive office in the land. And as they become more numerous and more empowered we can expect them to more aggressively seek to infiltrate more and more key positions of power under the United States.

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

EXACTLY WHY EVERY TRUE AMERICAN NEEDS TO DECLARE OPEN SEASON ON MUSLIMS! EXTERMINATE THEM FROM AMERICA!

Lyn said...

Is this a petition? Seriously I want to sign it.

Just curious. Can anyone name one other single President who could have gotten away with such blatant affirmative action? Check that - blatant discrimination.

How did so many people get fooled by this kaffir Obama?

Call Me Mom said...

Anonymous,
I won't speak for Terry, but my own feeling is that your post is obnoxious and at best.
Muslims are also made in the image of God. This means that the logical solution is to convert them all to Christianity.

Terry Morris said...

Mom,

I imagine that to most Muslims the idea of converting them all to Christianity is about as obnoxious a concept as there possibly can be, more obnoxious than "exterminating" them from America even.

But you're right, Anonymous's choice of terms leaves a lot to be desired.

Declaring "open season" on Muslims, and "exterminating" them from America certainly wasn't anywhere close to what I had in mind when I wrote the entry. And, yes, the concepts (if Anonymous is using the terms the way I understand them) are repulsive and obnoxious to me. Permanently halting their migration here? Well, that would certainly be a good start.

Lyn, keep in mind that we have a large minority population in America that, keeping with current rates, will relatively shortly dominate the current majority. Add to this the principle of "universal suffrage" and you have the perfect recipe for an Obama style presidential victory like we saw in 2008.

Lucy&Dave said...

Islamites, that's a good term for them. We call them Islamics. They hail from the religion of "peace" apparently. That was Bush's biggest mistake wasn't it? After all they are truely the biggest war mongering violent barstads the world has ever had to deal with. Death cult is more fitting. Look what they do to their women.. just disgusting. Michelle Obama should be pleased she has her labia and clitoris intact.

Terry Morris said...

Lucy (or Dave),

Re Islamites: I wish I could take credit for coining the term, but of course I can't.

Also notice that I referred to them as "Muslims living in America," not "Muslim-Americans." I personally refuse to refer to them as Muslim-Americans because their religion is about as anti-Western and unAmerican as a religio-political ideology can possibly be. It doesn't matter to me that many of them have managed to establish legal citizenship in this country. What matters to me most is where their loyalties lie. Muslims cannot possibly be loyal to the constitution and to Islam at the same time.

There's no love lost between me and Hussein Obama, but I don't think it's fair to say he's a Muslim. He's a Muslim sympathiser as I said in the entry, but that doesn't make him a Muslim anymore than president Bush's referring to Islam as a "religion of peace," and declaring that "radicals had hijacked a great religion" makes him a Muslim, although such statements do seem to indicate that he is sympathetic towards Muslims in certain ways similar to Obama.

Nonetheless, there's an element of the Muslim community who think that Obama IS a Muslim (a natural-conceived Muslim), irrespective of what you or I think. And that may well be more important than what you and I and any other non-Muslim (including Obama himself) thinks about his religious professions.

Ron Russell said...

We are in a war with radical Islam, I realize not all who follow Islam are radicals, and if you ask them, you will never find one who says he is radical, so until you can seperate the two, none need to be in positions of powere in this country.

Terry Morris said...

Ron,

Your comments bring to mind Bruce Tefft's comment on another entry I did concerning Islam back in October of 2007. He wrote:

I would say that the best ways to judge the sincerity of apostates and ex-Muslims would be to watch what they do and say AND also watch carefully the Muslim reactions to them. By their deeds they will be known. To mitigate the possibility that an apostate or ex-Muslim was indeed acting under special dispensation to infiltrate the enemy's rank...you would never put them in a sensitive position where they could actually damage the West. How does one trust someone who has already proved himself a traitor

chiu_chunling said...

I wouldn't hesitate to make the case that Obama is indeed a Muslim on the available evidence. He almost certainly "converted" to Islam early in his life and was raised in Islam (whether or not he was technically converted, and it's hard to make a plausible case that he wasn't). His only claim to not being a Muslim is his membership in a "Christian" church...which church is openly based on "Black Liberation Theology", a movement drawn almost entirely from Islamic Nation and socialist thought with the thinnest gloss possible of biblical terminology.

By the Koranic injunction against judging anyone to be an infidel so long as they give an Islamic greeting and revere the name of Allah, Obama definitely qualifies as a fellow Muslim.

Whereas by the common Christian test of expressing a definite faith in the unique redemptive power and divinity of Christ and His teachings, Obama totally fails to qualify as a Christian.

With all of that being said, it really wouldn't bother me that he's far more Muslim than Christian if he were just honest about it. I don't regard Islam as being any more false than Shinto...and frankly I think it would be kinda awesome to have a Shintoist for President of the United States.

Of course, Shintoism, because of its hyper-polytheism, is naturally tolerant of other religions, while Islam is rather less so. But the Presidency doesn't have a religious test, and it really shouldn't need one. As long as the guy means it when he swears to uphold the Constitution, I don't care if he privately would rather this or that be different.

But when he has so little personal honor that he feels the need to rely on bald-faced lies about his religious beliefs to get into power, and then aggressively oversteps every Constitutional limitation on his office in the active pursuit of abolishing the role of the Constitution as the foundation of American law...well I find it hard to believe that he's taking that oath of office very seriously.

Man...now I really wish there would have been a Shintoist running for President. That would have been so awesome.

Terry Morris said...

Well, I'm just trying to give the poor b*stard the benefit of the doubt. Lord knows he needs it about now, and things most assuredly will not get any better for him.

That Hussein is sympathetic towards Islam, and that he has ties to Islam has always been enough (though hardly the only factor) to disqalify him from the presidency as far as I'm concerned, and in spite of what Colin Powell believes to be authentic Americanism. And speaking of Colin Powell, why is it that every time I think of him lately I begin to be filled with righteous indignation?

chiu_chunling said...

I've always believed that totalitarianism, not Islam, was the real danger to liberty. Of course, Islam is clearly a totalitarian philosophy as much or more than a serious religion.

Clarification, by religion I mean a path towards God (or gods, in the case of Shintoism). Many people do use the teachings of Islam as a way towards the divine. But I sense that more use it as a justification for unlimited rule.

Of course, most Muslims use it for neither. Sadly, many people are too busy with "life" to examine it and, happily, many aren't really interested in devoting themselves to oppressing others beyond what's personally convenient.

But while Islam is clearly totalitarian, it isn't the philosophy that most endangers Western Civilization. Fascism, then Communism, both far more significant threats, have been cast on the dust-bin of history (only kooks dig them out and dust them off anymore). Islam would inevitably suffer the same fate if it weren't for the resurgence of Progressivism.

Progressivism is different from other totalitarian philosophies. See, the other philosophies were exclusionary and competed with each other, often fiercely. But Progressivism has always been friendly to every identifiably totalitarian philosophy. That is because those other philosophies viewed totalitarianism as a means to some end.

Progressives understand, whether implicitly or explicitly, that totalitarianism is the end. Communism, Fascism, and Islam all hate and fight each other and Progressivism, but Progressivism loves and fosters each of them in return.

Because Progressives understand the great secret of totalitarianism, revealed by the ancient question, who shall watch the watchmen? Once you get into power, the theory that justifies your power doesn't matter. Nobody is in a position to question, or even know, your actions. You can do whatever you want at that point.

It only costs you your soul.

The_Editrix said...

I agree with everything chiu_chunling said. Just let me relativize this detail:

"But when he has so little personal honor that he feels the need to rely on bald-faced lies about his religious beliefs to get into power, and then aggressively oversteps every Constitutional limitation on his office in the active pursuit of abolishing the role of the Constitution as the foundation of American law...well I find it hard to believe that he's taking that oath of office very seriously."

I don't think that "personal honour" is something a Muslim cares much about or even understands. Obama is clearly well-versed in taqqiya. The much-hailed Europe trip has frightened the living daylight out of me and I am not easily frightened. That man is clearly aiming to drive your country up against the wall to the fervent acclaim of the world. I hope I am wrong.

Call Me Mom said...

Terry & all,
I have reservations about questioning anyone's claim to Christianity. That said, I couldn't help noticing, however, that in the early days of his campaign, Mr. Obama's conversion to Christianity was couched solely in terms of it's advantage to him as a community organizer, in that it gave him access to the Christian networks of volunteers to help his cause(s).
Also, I'm sure that most Muslims would find my comment about converting them all to be more offensive than Anonymous' statement. Good! Perhaps it would cause some of them to think about their current faith and perhaps come to the conclusion that they must resolve the inherent logic flaws in their view that Jesus Christ was only a prophet.

Editrix, You said "I don't think that "personal honour" is something a Muslim cares much about or even understands."
Why do you think that? I'm just curious.

chiu_chunling said...

"Taqiya", the practice of denying that one is a Muslim when confronted with possible persecution, is one of the pragmatic tenants of Islam. The term is Arabic for "prudence".

That Islam teaches such doctrines, along with convenient betrayal of treaties and agreements with infidels, tends to create two standards of honor which are distinct and contradictory. It may become a Muslim's religious duty to do things that are abhorrent to ordinary personal honor. For instance, telling a bald-faced lie about one's beliefs to gain the trust of an infidel, then betraying that infidel to death. That makes having personal honor very difficult for Muslims who take Islam seriously as an ethical system.

America, by the way, is overwhelmingly non-Muslim...you can draw your own conclusions about what that implies even if it weren't for all the Muslims constantly chanting "Death to America" and calling us "the Great Satan".

I would be more concerned about that aspect of Islam if I sensed that Obama had any personal honor to sacrifice to his Islamic faith. But he clearly doesn't. To quote Darth Vader, "There is no conflict."

Judging from his statements, Obama is a Christian only in the sense that every Muslim is also a Christian. He believes that Jesus Christ was a good man who taught many moral truths. Such is an official tenant of Islam, found right in the Koran.

Terry Morris said...

All,

I've defended Hussein Obama against accusations of his being a covert Muslim. My only basis for defending him in this way has been his word. Since I believe in freedom of conscience, the fact that he was raised a Muslim during his formidable years does not mean to me that he is necessarily a Muslim anymore than my being raised a Oneness Pentecostal during my formidable years means I am one now. Yes, I am an apostate from that branch of the faith which seems to doom me eternally in the eyes of some. (Happily none of them think I should have my head cut off as a just reward for my apostasy. Perhaps that's because there's nothing in the book of Acts requiring such a return on my deeds? Hmm.)

But I have to say that taken as a whole Hussein Obama's actions speak louder than his words. The recent obeisance he paid to the king of Saudi Arabia (right in front of God and everybody!) is very troubling indeed. As I said in another post above, his intimate connections to Mohammed's religion have always been enough in and of themselves to disqualify him from the presidency in my view. Everything else aside, I could never have voted for him on that basis alone ... not for dog catcher, much less POTUS.

Irrespective of that, I'll not be defending Hussein Obama against these accusations again. If it walks like a duck and all that, it probably is one.

The_Editrix said...

"Editrix, You said "I don't think that "personal honour" is something a Muslim cares much about or even understands."
Why do you think that? I'm just curious."

Mom, isn't "personal honour" a thoroughly Western thing? Our personal honour is not the loudmouthed, cocky 'honour' Muslims are claiming. Islam, like any totalitarian world view, doesn't know the individual, just string puppets to further the cause of Islam. Can we compare our understanding of honour with one that asks for the killing of erring daughters and sisters?

Honour is the outward expression of what we call our conscience. It is defined as the moral sense of right and wrong. It was born at Mount Sinai with Moses as birth attendant. The Decalogue pretty much still covers everything we need to know about ethics and morality. Is this, our, personal honour comparable to the honour of killing for Allah?

Not to speak of Buddhism which snares mankind in reincarnations in a world of suffering or Hinduism where they are trapped in reincarnation due to ignorance and karma, whether one sees those belief systems as another expression of totalitarianism or some sort of perverted individualism with its concept of individualistic salvation.

As an aside: I believe that the modern attraction those alien belief systems hold for many Christians is a symptom not of a failure of Christianity but of the inconvenient burden of conscience with which we Westerners are, depending of one's personal view, lumbered or blessed.

Here is a statement by chiu_chunling with which I clearly disagree:

"But while Islam is clearly totalitarian, it isn't the philosophy that most endangers Western Civilization. Fascism, then Communism, both far more significant threats, have been cast on the dust-bin of history (only kooks dig them out and dust them off anymore). Islam would inevitably suffer the same fate if it weren't for the resurgence of Progressivism."

That is wishful thinking. Both, fascism and Communism, are ideologies based on Western concepts, one being a perverted idea of social justice, the other a similarly perverted concept of traditional national identity and values. Islam is something entirely different. Islam has conquered already a considerable part of the world, a part that never had any defense mechanisms. Peversely, as long as the Cold War lasted and Western (and Eastern) defense mechanisms were up, there was no room for too obvious Islamic expansionism. Now, where we are all supposed to get along with each other (but don't), Islam's hour has come. Don't you see what is happening in Turkey, the once stalwart of secular values? It has been re-conquered by Islam already. Islam was once stopped at the Gates of Vienna, at Tours and Poitiers, at Roncesvalles. Muslims have never forgotten that. Every spot where Muslims once trod is Muslim ground forever. What about the re-Islamisation of the once pretty well assimilated Turks in Germany? Yesterday, I listened to the discussion on the wireless about the re-introduction of religious instruction in Berlin schools. Although it wasn't about Islam at all, they had invited a Muslima (but not a Jew), a highly articulate young woman with a Turkish name and without any foreign accent, who dominated the entire discussion and the entire discussion became one about Islam with the representatives of the Christian denominations totally in the defensive. They are creeping in our heads now, so we will hardly notice or mind anymore once they have conquered us physically.

Sorry to rain on all the righteous conservatives', eager to point out the similarities between the current and the last president, parade: The partly helpless, partly opportunist, politically correct bull Bush talked about Islam has nothing, but NOTHING, to do with Obama's active promotion of it. If I say that every spot where Muslims once trod is Muslim ground forever that applies to Obama's mind and soul as well.

Terry Morris said...

I agree. Personal honor in the Western/American sense, and personal honor in the Arabic/Muslim sense are two different, even opposing concepts.

I'm mindful here of George Washington's admonitions (which I'm going to quote from memory since I'm too lazy to look it up right now):

"Where is the security for life, for liberty, for property when the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths, which are the objects of investigation in the courts of justice?"

That statement emanates from a Western worldview and applies particularly to those who possess a Western worldview. It does not apply to Muslims in the same sense that it applies to Westerners, and I suspect that George Washington was very aware of this.

This is also the reason that wherever we find Muslims in significant numbers they ultimately begin to make demands on the host society for the establishment of sharia courts where they can adhere to the dictates of Muslim style personal honor.

chiu_chunling said...

I feel to point out a fact about the origins of Islam which, whether you regard it as praise of Mohammed or not, is important to understanding the "Muslim problem."

The Arabs living in the area where Islam was initially founded had not achieved civilization before Mohammed. They were living in between patriarchal tribalism and barbarism. There was no ethical system in place that encouraged principles of fair dealing with strangers, meaning anyone that a man hadn't known pretty much from childhood.

Islam represented a giant leap in ethical development, taking the Arabs from the clan system to the ethical level capable of forming an empire within a single generation. All the other great moral teachers to whom we typically are encouraged to compare Mohammed built on an existing foundation of civilized ethical principles. His achievement is actually quite singular, possibly unparalleled.

That said, Islam hasn't come very far since. In point of fact, all the available historical evidence indicates some pretty severe backsliding. Between the inculcation of terrorist values in the youth and the long-standing divisions over authority and validity in Islam, many Muslims today are no better (from an ethical perspective) than their pre-Islamic forebears.

It is necessary to understand this because we sometimes are tempted to judge Muslims by civilized standards of ethical behavior, which is just not workable. Forget questions of fairness, aside from the tiny minority of Muslims raised in civilized society who later converted to Islam, Muslims just haven't been raised with any of the concepts we associate with civilization.

Watch any of these Islamic children's shows for a few minutes and you can see it in action. It's like episodes of Sesame Street written by cave-men. Or, more accurately, tribal desert nomads with almost no pre-existing ethical concepts.

As much as this horrifies the modern sensibility, it helps explain why Muslims are such piss-poor soldiers. Israel won every battle they fought with the Muslim nations before we started bribing them to ease up. It wasn't because the Israelis have some magical Jewish indestructibility (though they are pretty tough compared to a lot of other folks). It's because the individual Muslim soldier is, when push comes to shove, willing to sacrifice others for his own self-interest.

The reliance on suicide bombers is actually an example of this. The talent which makes the bombs is entirely separate from the poor fools brainwashed or blackmailed into carrying out the bombing. The Muslim nations inculcate in their population from the time that they are little children the idea that the most certain path to heaven is "martyrdom". They feed sexually repressed youth on fantasies of unlimited gratification if they'll accept one of these missions. And even at that, they can't get enough volunteers, so often they resort to taking families hostage in order to coerce someone into doing the job.

But the central point of using suicide bombers is that you know that your fighters will typically run away the moment things get scary, so you arrange for them to blow up before that happens.

This is why Islam has no hope of victory over civilization...except insofar as civilization falls to a more powerful and insidious enemy.

Progressives are not pre-civilization, but post-civilization. They have no ethics, not because they have never been taught them, but because they consciously disdain them as being personally disadvantageous. They understand our society, and have patiently worked for more than a century now to bring it under their control.

They plan to co-opt Islam just as they co-opted Fascism and Communism, simply seducing the leadership to abandon their nominal goals while deceiving their followers by abusing their unlimited power. The modern environmental movement is yet another victim of Progressives, who sell the rank and file on scientifically unsound models of climate as a means of justifying their totalitarian control.

Islam probably wouldn't even be a serious enemy of the West if it weren't for progressives selling them on the hierarchy that separates the suicide bombers from the leaders. The difference between the way in which the American advisers cultivated Afghan resistance to the Soviet Union and the way that Soviet advisers cultivated Arab resistance to America is very telling. The Americans taught Muslims to be better soldiers, the Soviets taught the leaders to make ever more callous use of their followers.

The Northern Alliance, former resistance fighters against the Soviets who had resisted Taliban rule for decades, were an alliance because they were formed of disparate ethnic minorities without a unifying ideology other than resistance to the Taliban. And yet, despite being outnumbered, out-gunned, and out-supplied for decades since the end of the proxy war against the Soviets, they held onto a significant patch of the country and were still there when the Americans returned.

They weren't happy about being abandoned before, but they didn't turn on us either, despite being Muslims. They still don't have the capability of fighting a Taliban supplied and sheltered by Pakistan (with the support of oil-rich Arab nations), but if we left today they'd pull back to what they could defend on their own and hold that without our help. It wouldn't make them happy, but they'd do it.

They are what Islam might be, if not for the hand of global progressives guiding Muslim nations for the last fifty or sixty years (ever since it became clear that the Middle East would be important).

And where do progressives come from? They used to be concentrated in Germany, before their influence completely destroyed that country twice. For the last half century they've been heavily concentrated in the United States, particularly in your educational and media institutions. There they use their influence to teach the world to hate America and America to hate itself.

Islam is an enemy of America, but not because of anything intrinsic to the Muslim faith. It is true that Islam does not provide the moral valuation of conscience which is implicit in Christian teachings, but Islamic nations and empires have practiced a degree of practical religious tolerance in the past. We need not, and should not, defeat Islam.

We must destroy progressivism.

The_Editrix said...

"Islam probably wouldn't even be a serious enemy of the West if it weren't for progressives selling them on the hierarchy that separates the suicide bombers from the leaders.

...

Islam is an enemy of America, but not because of anything intrinsic to the Muslim faith. It is true that Islam does not provide the moral valuation of conscience which is implicit in Christian teachings, but Islamic nations and empires have practiced a degree of practical religious tolerance in the past. We need not, and should not, defeat Islam."

That is a naive and potentially suicidal (and very American) misconception. It wasn't "progressives" who jammed the airliners into the WTC on 9/11 and it would have happened even if America'd have taken the toughest of stands against Islam. Maybe even earlier. Muslims hate the West for what it IS (progressives included) and they have been a threat to the West before "progressives" were invented (or America was discovered, for that). I mentioned Tours and Poitiers in a previous comment. 732, that was. Only 100 years after Muhammad's death and 765 years before the first Christian set foot on American mainland. And it took even longer for the first "progressives" to appear. And you SERIOUSLY believe that a few pissy "progressives" are responsible for the condition in which we find us in the West? That the power and the violence that made Islam conquer much of the then known world literally only years after its invention by the epileptic, child molesting thief Muhammad is NOT inherent to this totalitarian death cult, but the fault of "progressives"? What "progressives"? The only culture that was able to withstand Islam over the centuries was the West, based on the progressive teachings of a man from Nazareth.

And I am stunned that somebody who is obviously critical of Islam should fall for the tolerance myth. (One of those progressive inventions, by the way!) There is plenty of serious information around dispelling that myth. Have you ever taken the trouble to read the Koran or, if you can't read Arabic, a reliable translation? They are there. Everything Muslims do (but EVERYTHING!) is written in that book. Of the long list of literature, I recommend to read Andrew Bostom first because he seems to possess the most realistic point of view of all the many who have covered that topic.

John Derbyshire (who is, by the way and tellingly, not born American) wrote on September 13, 2001: "A common word for Europeans in the Arabic language is feringji, from "Frank," i.e. crusader. Arabs don't hate us because we support Israel. They hate us because we humiliated them, showed up the gross inferiority of their culture. To them, and similarly humiliated peoples, we are the other, detested and feared in a way we can barely understand. Things got really bad in the 19th century. When European society achieved industrial lift-off, Europeans were suddenly buzzing all over the world like a swarm of bees. They encountered these other cultures, that had been vegetating in a quiet conviction of their own superiority for centuries (or in the case of the Chinese, millennia). When these encounters occurred, the encountered culture collapsed in a cloud of dust. Some of them, like the Turks, managed to reconstitute themselves as more or less modern nations; others, like the Arabs and the Chinese, are still struggling with the trauma of that encounter. . .

The 1991 Gulf War showed how little has changed since those first encounters. Here were the armies of the West: swift, deadly, efficient, equipped and organized, under the command of elected civilians at the head of a robust and elaborate constitutional structure. And here were the Arabs: a shambling, ill-nourished, shoeless rabble, led by a mad gangster-despot. (That was their Arabs. There were also, of course, our Arabs — the Kuwaitis and Saudis, cowering in their plush-lined air-conditioned bunkers being waited on by their Filipino servants while we did their fighting for them.) Final body counts: the West, 134 dead, the Arabs, 20,000 or more. The superiority of one culture over another has not been so starkly demonstrated since a handful of British wooden ships, at the end of ten-thousand-mile lines of communications, brought the Celestial Empire to its knees 150 years earlier. The Chinese are still mad about that: They are still making angry, bitter movies about the Opium Wars. A hundred and 50 years from now, the Arabs will not have forgotten the Gulf War."

Derbyshire makes the mistake to equal Islam with other backward ideologies, but otherwise his analysis is sound, or at least it was when he wrote it. In the 7 1/2 years since John Derbyshire wrote that, Turkey has been already re-conquered by Islam. The fault of "progressives"?

No doubt, the current liberal political correctness weakens the defenses of the West, as does the stance of those on the right who think that the Muslims will at least free the world from the Jews. But did they cause the inherent violence of Islam? It's inbuilt zeal to conquer and rule the world? It's cruelty and ruthlessness?

For heaven's sake, if I have ever seen somebody barking up the wrong tree it is here and now. I visit Webster's because I admire America and her best ideals, which are so beautifully explained here, but sometimes your Americanocentric views makes me sick. I wish you'd have to live, like we have, 2500, and not (from the geographical center) 7500 miles from Mecca with Islam rubbed in our faces every day. I guess the frightening radical re-Islamization of the relatively well-adjusted Turks in Germany was the fault of "progressives" as well and not of the inherent power-hunger of Islam.

Terry Morris said...

Thank you Nora. I agree.

Here is an online source that some might find useful. I have the site permanently linked under "On Islam" in the left sidebar.

chiu_chunling said...

"They hate us because we humiliated them, showed up the gross inferiority of their culture. To them, and similarly humiliated peoples, we are the other, detested and feared in a way we can barely understand....

When these encounters occurred, the encountered culture collapsed in a cloud of dust. Some of them, like the Turks, managed to reconstitute themselves as more or less modern nations; others, like the Arabs and the Chinese, are still struggling with the trauma of that encounter. . ."

This is a very grim outlook. More particularly, it doesn't only make Islam the enemy of the Western Civilization, but every non-western society. I do think that there is a certain truth behind it, though. The fact of the matter is that Western Civilization will always have competitors, and many of those competitors will choose military force or terrorism in an attempt to gain tactical advantage.

But, for a moment, consider Japan. While Japan has adopted and vigorously practiced many institutions created by Western Civilization, it remains distinctively Japanese and thoroughly non-Western in several vital respects. Perhaps most significantly, they remain very selective about what they import from other cultures.

There are other examples which may be worth mentioning, but Japan is particularly interesting because nearly all the cultural innovations it has adopted from the West were accepted as the result of overwhelming military force.

Would you argue that, because Japan will never fully westernize, it should be destroyed entirely? But leave even this question aside.

Who is really doing the most damage, right now, to America? Trend that back over the last hundred years. Who has been wrecking the economy, crippling or ham-stringing the military, shredding the Constitution, ruining each rising generation, abolishing the fundamental basis of civility and society, killing millions of American children every year, disparaging and destroying the basic freedoms...I'll cut this short because it really is a long list, but who has been doing all this?

Whether or not America needs to exterminate Islam, and reasonable people might disagree on that point given the current situation, whether or not America needs to take on the entire rest of the world...do you really imagine you can win if you don't defeat progressivism at home?

Don't be fooled by the dictionary definition of "progressives" as "those who favor progress toward better conditions in government and society." As though everyone else is in favor of worse conditions. These people are not the heirs of Christ. They have an unspeakable agenda, with no moral justification whatsoever. They want to consolidate unlimited power in themselves, for no better reason than because they desire it.

And they will do or say anything to get it.

They exist, they are real, they have a name and an agenda. And they must be defeated.

Terry Morris said...

Chiu wrote:

Would you argue that, because Japan will never fully westernize, it should be destroyed entirely?

Chiu,

I think you've misunderstood Nora's reply to you. She isn't saying that we should engage ourselves in the impossible task of destroying Islam entirely -- that would be insane, and Nora is far from that. She's simply arguing that Islam is a real threat to Western civilization; a threat that we must take appropriate and effective steps to eradicate. And that with or without our progressives, Islam will always present a threat to Western civilization because there is no principle in Islam by which Muslims are permitted to live in peace with infidels, or, non-Muslims except by subjugating them and imposing on them the jizya.

I can personally identify with your view, however. The 19 hijackers on 9/11 got access to this country via insane liberal immigration policies. Liberals didn't create the hatred those Muslims had for Western civilization, they simply provided the avenues by which the hijackers would ultimately be enabled to act on that hatred. In that sense liberals are the greater threat to Western civilization. But Nora is right to point out that Islam would hate us and seek to destroy us by whatever means made available to them with or without progressives.

chiu_chunling said...

I think that Koranic Islam will always remain a threat. Originally, Mohammed evidently wished for Islam to continue to evolve and progress, which is why he forbade his followers from making his teachings into scripture. He wanted Islam to be a religion based on the Bible, like Judaism and Christianity.

I guess the lesson there is that when you know your teaching shouldn't be scripture, you should try to avoid starting a religion in the first place.

Anyway, I believe that there is room for a peaceful, non-Koranic Islam which takes seriously Mohammed's injunction against setting him up as a supreme religious authority. That sees and mourns the essential tragedy of an very human man, trying his best to give religion to his followers, but doomed to failure by the moral weakness common to all.

When Mohammed was going to die, he gathered his people around him and asked them if he had done more good than evil to them. I think he knew the truth by then. But he wanted to die with comforting words in his ears, even if he knew them to be untrue. There is something very sad in that story.

Of course, non-Koranic Islam, by understanding the tragedy of human imperfection, utterly abnegates the central focus of Koranic Islam. And it falls far short of Christianity, settling for the melancholy of existential despair painted by a panoramic sweep of epic history centered on one poor bastard just trying to do his best.

But I think such a tradition could exist at peace with Western Civilization. And there is definitely evidence that such a strain of Islam is coming into its own. I think the Promethean aspect of the story is particularly timeless, but of course that perspective wouldn't be very Islamic.

Anonymous said...

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!

Anonymous said...

Please, give me link to download XRumer 7.0!!!
Thanks!

Always yours,
miss MW