The Great Issue of Our Times

[jack stowaway]

I have argued previously in these fora that the great issue of our time, the central historical fact of the present age, is the insidious and irreversible conquest-by-stealth of Western Civilization by Islam. To my mind, it is the only issue --everything else is sidebar to this climactic narrative. 'Climactic' since it signals the end trajectory of that great arc of Christian culture which has so profoundly shaped Western society, culminating in the technologically advanced, liberal societies we inhabit today.

It is sobering how few people are cognisant of the nature and extent of the threat. Perhaps the reality is so overwhelming that people choose to ignore in the vain hope that it will just, of its own accord, 'go away.' But demographically Islam has already made significant, and irreversible, inroads into Europe. A dramatically declining birthrate, coupled with mass migration and the failure of integration, practically ensures a future Europe where the mass of voters are young, hostile, and Islamic.

The prognosis for the continuance of liberal society --with all that this entails (gender and minority rights, secularism, freedom of expression and dissent, the right to choose one's own lifestyle etc ) are grim. A pessimist might say that the civilizational war has already been lost.

One's view of contemporary events will be majorly influenced by how real one takes the threat from Islam to be. It will, for example, influence one's perception of the war in Iraq. Is it a 'local' conflict (in which the West has no business interferring) or one chapter of a world-wide war against a militantly resurgent Islam? (In which case the forced introduction of democractic prinicples into the heartland of Islam is not only pre-emptively defensive in nature but a strategic necessity.)

The above reflections were occasioned by reading a review of Mark Steyn's latest book. The reviewer is Daniel Pipes, and the review is copied below...

Steyn's New Book Combines Humor, Accuracy, Depth
BY DANIEL PIPES
November 14, 2006

The political columnist and cultural critic Mark Steyn has written a remarkable book, "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It" (Regnery). He combines several virtues not commonly found together — humor, accurate reportage, and deep thinking — and then applies them to what is arguably the most consequential issue of our time: the Islamist threat to the West.

Mr. Steyn offers a devastating thesis but presents it in bits and pieces, so I shall pull it together here.

He begins with the legacy of two totalitarianisms. Traumatized by the electoral appeal of fascism, post-World War II European states were constructed in a top-down manner,"so as to insulate almost entirely the political class from populist pressures." As a result, the establishment has "come to regard the electorate as children."

Second, the Soviet menace during the Cold War prompted American leaders, impatient with Europe's (and Canada's) weak responses, effectively to take over their defense. This benign and far-sighted policy led to victory by 1991, but it also had the unintended and less salutary side effect of freeing up Europe's funds to build a welfare state. This welfare state had several malign implications.

- The nanny state infantilized Europeans, making them worry about such pseudo-issues as climate change while feminizing the males.

- It also neutered them, annexing "most of the core functions of adulthood," starting with the instinct to breed. From about 1980, birth rates plummeted, leaving an inadequate base for today's workers to receive their pensions.

- Structured on a pay-as-you-go basis, it amounted to an intergenerational Ponzi scheme under which today's workers depend on their children for their pensions.

- The demographic collapse meant that the indigenous peoples of countries like Russia, Italy, and Spain are at the start of a population death spiral.

- It led to a collapse of confidence that in turn bred "civilizational exhaustion," leaving Europeans unprepared to fight for their ways.

To keep the economic machine running meant accepting foreign workers. Rather than execute a long-term plan to prepare for the many millions of immigrants needed, Europe's elites punted, welcoming almost anyone who turned up. By virtue of geographic proximity, demographic overdrive, and a crisis-prone environment, "Islam is now the principal supplier of new Europeans," Mr. Steyn writes.

Arriving at a time of demographic, political, and cultural weakness, Muslims are profoundly changing Europe: "Islam has youth and will, Europe has age and welfare." Put differently, "Premodern Islam beats post-modern Christianity." Much of the Western world, Mr. Steyn flat-out predicts, "will not survive the twenty-first century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most European countries." With even more drama, he adds, "It's the end of the world as we know it."

(In contrast, I believe that Europe still has time to avoid this fate.)

"America Alone" deals at length with what Mr. Steyn calls "the larger forces at play in the developed world that have left Europe too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia." Europe's successor population is already in place, and "the only question is how bloody the transfer of real estate will be." He interprets the Madrid and London bombings, as well as the murder of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam, as opening shots in Europe's civil war and states, "Europe is the colony now."

The title "America Alone" refers to Mr. Steyn's expectation that America — with its "relatively healthy demographic profile" — will emerge as the lonely survivor of this crucible. "Europe is dying and America isn't." Therefore, "the Continent is up for grabs in a way that America isn't." Mr. Steyn's target audience is primarily American: Watch out, he is saying, or the same will happen to you.

Pared to its essentials, he counsels two things: First, avoid the "bloated European welfare systems," declare them no less than a national security threat, shrink the state, and emphasize the virtues of self-reliance and individual innovation. Second, avoid "imperial understretch," don't "hunker down in Fortress America" but destroy the ideology of radical Islam, help reform Islam, and expand Western civilization to new places. Only if Americans "can summon the will to shape at least part of the emerging world" will they have enough company to soldier on. Failing that, expect a "new Dark Ages ... a planet on which much of the map is re-primitivized."

[Lilith]

I think this is all just a little bit 'over the top'. All the points are legitimate concerns, but when I finish reading this I feel like the world will be lucky to last another 5 years. A little too much hysteria? Remember when Communism was going to take over the world?

[Werner]

Remembering a bit further back, I remember those heroic believers after Pearl Harbor who felt "the Japs" were unstoppable.

Another slap at the "nanny state" ignores the fact that the last century saw a growing ability of government to serve without domination - OK, our right wing friends, argue! - the defeat of not one but two world threatening tyrants - the second without firing a shot - and the emergence of a strong, vital and vigorous middle class.

I can't trust all these visionaries who make a policy of peddling fear. We have a lot more going for us - the example of a better life for all under our system as opposed to what the opposition - in this case radical Islam - has to offer.

[Barry]

The Communists, led by the Soviet Union, would have taken over the world if not for the national fortitude and huge commitment, militarily and otherwise, from the United States and its allies for a period of four decades.

And "the Japs" would have been unstoppable in the east if, again, not for the fortitude and all out commitment by the U.S. and its allies.

We're facing an equally determined enemy now. They may not have the conventional military might of the Soviets or Japanes, but they won't need it the west doesn't wise up. Terrible political leadership is certainly part of the problem, but not all of it.

[Werner]

Right you are, Barry! We've stood the test before. We still have the strength and the better cards to play. We'll do it again - and that includes our allies.

[pizza]

Right you are, Barry! We've stood the test before. We still have the strength and the better cards to play. We'll do it again - and that includes our allies.

Our "allies" didn't "do it" before without our direct intervention. What makes you think they're willing to do it at all? France was the biggest and most willing collaborator with the Nazis of all western countries during WW2 despite all the phony propaganda about resistance. Remember Vichy? They're folding again. The brand of fascism is different but their attitude toward it is pretty much the same.

[Sapphire]

I agree entirely with Jack. The only caveat I would make is that "climate change" itself is another very worrying aspect of the future, but that's another subject.

On the growth of Islam, I agree that it seems to be gaining the ascendancy. On the demographics, it seems set to increase even further. I understand there are now more Muslims than and R.C. in the world. As far as the UK is concerned, I don't like the look of all that I see. While the majority of Muslim folk are perfectly acceptable, I feel as if some of their leaders despise people of other religions and our culture generally. We also have growing ghettos of Muslims, where there are sections of their youth which are hot beds of discontent. I've watched TV programmes about them and it's clear that pictures of Iraq drive them nuts with anger.

I think it's right to be concerned about this trend. It won't just disappear. I'm very proud of the UK's history and cultural background. What's wrong with wanting to protect our culture? I have no problem at all about people of other religions coming here and getting on quietly with their way of life, provided we don't have to make big exceptions to the way we conduct ours and to be obliged to accept all their strange customs, some of which can be repellant to many indigenous members of the population. If present trends continue, I reckon in about 50 years or so many parts of Europe could be over-run by Islam. I would support any reasonable measures aimed at controlling the worst excesses of Islam in the UK's culture. If that means controlling immigration and making sure that those here comply with our basic norms, not theirs, so be it. And tough if they don't like it. I certainly would not want any Muslim countries joining the EU.

Clearly, some aspects of Communism had to be fought. It was, and still is, one of the most evil of regimes. So too, clearly, was it necessary to fight the Japs and Hitler. Two more evil regimes. Without a strong fight, we would have been over-run for sure in WWII. It took inspired leadership to help overcome these threats. Europe should be eternally grateful to the USA for the phenomenol assistance given to us in the Wars and post WWII to deal with these threats. I can see where the future threat is coming from, and that is why I'm very sympathetic to Bush/Blair in their fight against terror, and to give them the benefit of the doubt in most situations. Perhaps not too surprisingly, the most perceptive assessments of this threat against our culture seem to be coming from certain sections of the leaders of Christianity.


Saphire

[Werner]

Pizza, I don't believe that it's right to call the French the most willing collaborators with the Nazis. Vichy was the government of conquered France, headed by Ptain, the over-the-hill marshall of WWI France.

Weak the French were, yes, but that's to the same as sympathizing with Les Boches. For all that, shall we say the national qualities of the French are quite their own and not readily duplicated abroad.

We had other allies - the Brits, for instance, and, yes, the Australians and others. And we can't afford to disdain assistance from abroad, nor to let an apparent sense of xenophobia such as you post suggests weaken our alliances - or we'll wind up with a paper tiger like Dubya's Coalition of the Willing.

[pizza]

Our World: After the muses fall silent

Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 20, 2006


British Prime Minister Tony Blair has gone on an appeasement spree and no one seems to mind. On Friday, Blair gave a marquis interview to Al-Jazeera's new psychological warfare platform - its English-language channel - to celebrate its launch.

It is unclear whether Blair meant to give the impression in that interview that he agreed with Al-Jazeera's Man-about-Town-in-Britain David Frost's assertion that the US-British war in Iraq is "pretty much a disaster." But Blair has made unmistakably clear that what he is suing for now is an ignominious American-British retreat from Iraq.

In his recent statements and actions, Blair has been unambiguous in communicating his belief that peace in Iraq begins with Israeli surrender to the Palestinians, Hizbullah and Syria. Blair sees in suicidal Israeli retreats from the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria the key to unlocking the hearts of the mullahs in Teheran and the Ba'athists in Damascus. As Blair sees it, these enemies of Israel, the US, Britain and the entire Free World will suddenly become reliable friends of the non-Jewish West if Israel is left at their tender mercies. As friends, Iran and Syria will allow the US and Britain to surrender Iraq with their heads held high as they hand global jihadists their greatest victory since the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan.

No less disturbing than Blair's embrace of surrender as a national strategy is the utter lack of outrage against his decision in the British and international media. No one questioned for instance, his decision to grant Al-Jazeera in English an exclusive interview. It is widely accepted, even by some of the British media, that Al-Jazeera's Arabic satellite station is used as a recruiting tool for global jihad. It can be reasonably presumed that the English channel will be used to erode the West's will to defend itself against global jihadist domination. The fact that the network is now operating an English channel should send a chill up the spine of Western and specifically British media outlets which will now have to compete against an enemy propaganda arm masquerading as a news channel.

THERE ARE many reasons that actions like Blair's strategic retreat from reason and responsibility have gone uncriticized by the media. It is not simply that Western, and particularly European journalists are overwhelmingly anti-American and virulently anti-Israel. One of the central reasons for the silence of Western intellectuals and media in the face of actions like Blair's is fear of death at the hands of jihadists.

In France today, high school teacher Robert Redeker has been living in hiding for two months. On September 19 Redeker published an op-ed in Le Figaro in which he decried Islamist intimidation of freedom of thought and expression in the West as manifested by the attacks against Pope Benedict XVI and against Christians in general which followed the pontiff's remarks on jihad earlier that month.

Redeker wrote, "As in the Cold War, where violence and intimidation were the methods used by an ideology hell bent on hegemony, so today Islam tries to put its leaden mantel all over the world. Benedict XVI's cruel experience is testimony to this. Nowadays, as in those times, the West has to be called the 'Free World' in comparison to the Muslim world; likewise, the enemies of the 'Free World,' the zealous bureaucrats of the Koran's vision, who swarm in the very center of the 'Free World,' should be called by their true name."

In reaction to Redeker's column, Egypt banned Le Figaro and Redeker received numerous death threats. His address and maps to his home were published on al-Qaida-linked Web sites and he was forced to leave his job, and flee for his life. While Redeker e-mailed a colleague that French police have set free the man they know was behind the threats to his life, Redeker recently described his plight to a friend in the following fashion, "There is no safe place for me, I have to beg, two evenings here, two evenings there... I am under the constant protection of the police. I must cancel all scheduled conferences."

For its part, Le Figaro's editor appeared on Al-Jazeera to apologize for publishing Redeker's article.

This weekend British author Douglas Murray discussed the intellectual terror in the Netherlands. Murray, who recently published Neoconservativism: Why We Need It, spoke at a conference in Palm Beach, Florida sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He noted that the two strongest voices in Holland warning against Islamic subversion of Dutch culture and society - Pim Fortyn and Theo Van Gogh - were murdered.

The third most prominent voice calling for the Dutch to take measures to defend themselves, former member of parliament Ayan Hirsi Ali, lives in Washington, DC today.

Her former colleague in the Dutch parliament, Geert Wilders, has been living under military protection, without a home, for years. In the current elections, Wilders has been unable to campaign because his whereabouts can never be announced. His supporters were reluctant to run for office on his candidates' slate for fear of being similarly threatened with murder. Last month, two of his campaign workers were beaten while putting up campaign posters in Amsterdam.

In 2000, Bart Jan Spruyt, a leading conservative intellectual in Holland established a neoconservative think tank called the Edmund Burke Institute. One of the goals of his institute is to convince the Dutch to defend themselves against the growing Islamist threat. In the period that followed, Spruyt was approached by security services and told that he should hire a bodyguard for personal protection. Although he couldn't afford the cost of a bodyguard, the police eventually provided him with protection after showing up at his office hours after Van Gogh was butchered by a jihadist in the streets of Amsterdam in November 2004.

ANOTHER LEADING conservative voice, law professor and social critic Paul Cliteur distinguished himself for his repeated calls for freedom of thought and for the protection of the Dutch secular state. In the weeks after Van Gogh's murder, Cliteur was the target of unremitting criticism from his leftist colleagues in the press. According to a report by the International Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, his colleagues blamed him and his ideological allies for the radicalization of the Muslims of Holland.

Clituer reacted to their abuse by announcing on television that he would no longer speak out or write about the Islamic takeover of Holland.
As the Helsinki report notes, although the European Human Rights Convention stipulates that states must enable free speech, "Annemarie Thomassen, a former Dutch judge at the [European Human Rights Court] in Strasbourg, stated that the limits to freedom of speech in the European context lie where the expressed opinions and statements affect the human dignity of another person. This means that, according to her, in Europe one cannot simply write and say anything one wants without showing some respect to other persons."

IN BRITAIN itself, the fact that no media organ dared to publish the Danish cartoons of Muhammad last year is a clear indication of the level of fear in the hearts of those who decide what Britons will know about their world.

Melanie Phillips, the author of Londonistan, noted at the Freedom Center conference that what Britons hear is best described as "a dialogue of the demented." In this dialogue, European Islamists protest victimization at the hands of the native Europeans while threatening to kill them, and native Europeans apologize for upsetting the Muslim radicals and loudly criticize the US and Israel for not going gently into that good night.

In the meantime, jihadist ideologues and political leaders are flourishing in Europe today. In Britain, aside from happily helping Al-Jazeera's ratings, the government has hired Muslim Brotherhood members as counterterrorism advisers.
In the wake of the Muslim cartoon pogroms, the BBC invited Dyab Abou Jahjah, who heads the Arab European League, to opine on the cartoons on its News Night program. Jahjah, who is affiliated with Hizbullah, led anti-Semitic riots in Antwerp in 2002 in which his followers smashed the windows of Jewish businesses, chanted slogans praising Osama bin Laden, and called out, "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas!" Most recently, Jahjah published cartoons depicting Anne Frank in bed with Adolph Hitler.

The first action that Yasser Arafat took in 1994 after establishing the Palestinian Authority was to attack Palestinian journalists, editors and newspaper offices. Journalists and editors were arrested and tortured and all were forced to accept PA control over their news coverage. The man charged with overseeing censorship was then information minister Yasser Abed Rabbo who in a later psychological warfare coup, signed the so-called Geneva Accord with Yossi Beilin in 2003.

This is the nature of our times. We are at war and those who warn of its dangers are being systematically silenced by our enemies who demand that nothing get in the way of our complacency with our own destruction.

If journalists, intellectuals, social critics, authors and concerned citizens throughout the world do not rise up and demand that their governments protect their right to free expression and arrest and punish those who intimidate and trounce that right, one day, years from now, when students of history ask how it came to pass that the Free World willingly enabled its own destruction, they will have to look no further than the contrasting fortunes of Al-Jazeera and Dyab Abou Jahjah on the one hand and Le Figaro and Robert Redeker on the other.


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... %2FPrinter

[pizza]

Pizza, I don't believe that it's right to call the French the most willing collaborators with the Nazis. Vichy was the government of conquered France, headed by Ptain, the over-the-hill marshall of WWI France.

Weak the French were, yes, but that's to the same as sympathizing with Les Boches. For all that, shall we say the national qualities of the French are quite their own and not readily duplicated abroad.

We had other allies - the Brits, for instance, and, yes, the Australians and others. And we can't afford to disdain assistance from abroad, nor to let an apparent sense of xenophobia such as you post suggests weaken our alliances - or we'll wind up with a paper tiger like Dubya's Coalition of the Willing.

No attempt to rewrite history will change it, Werner. The Vichy French went so far as to militarily oppose the 1942 Allied landings in North Africa -- unsuccessfully, as it turned out, but not for lack of trying.

As for the Brits, xenophobia hardly fits the description of contemporary British attitudes toward Islamo Fascists as painted by well-known British journalist Melanie Phillips; they had better wake up before it's too late:

"Is Britain Lost?

By Joseph Puder
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 21, 2006

"Britain stands at the precipice." Such is the view of British journalist Melanie Phillips in her recently published book, Londonistan, in which she argues that Britain and Europe are facing a civilizational test -- and they are in danger of failing.

Phillips expanded upon these themes last Wednesday, as a speaker in the Robert Guzzardi Lecture series, a public lecture sponsored by the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum. Phillips explained that the city of London has become the European hub for the promotion, recruitment, and financing of Islamist extremism and terrorism, making it what Phillips has dubbed “Londonistan.”

In her book, Phillips pieces together the story of how Londonistan developed. Britain, she points out, is experiencing a collapse of self-confidence and national identity. The result is a paralyzing multiculturalism as well as a powerful instinct for appeasing extremists.

In her remarks last week, Phillips suggested that the current climate threatens to “undermine the alliance with America and imperil the defense of the free world.” She quoted the former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky’s praise about her book: “Londonistan is a last minute warning for Britain and for much of the free world.” Phillips also noted Sharansky’s observation that, “In dictatorships you need courage to fight evil; in the free world you need courage to see evil.”

The fact that Britons have been blind to the evil in their midst figures prominently in Londonistan. Phillips shows how Islamic clerics indoctrinate young British Muslims with hate and incite them toward violence. For instance, young British Muslims are told that Islam is under attack by the West, that Americans are butchering Muslims in Iraq, that Jews are doing the same in Palestine, and that the Israeli Mossad and the American CIA perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.

Why has the British public allowed this radicalization to continue? Phillips believes that the answer has to do with the pervasive culture of political correctness, which makes the British reluctant to challenge the authority of Islamist clerics, however extreme. Islamists, in turn, have deftly exploited the British public’s weakness in defending its culture and institutions. As a result, all criticism of Islam is today automatically viewed as “Islamophobia.”

A recent controversy in Britain lends support to Phillips's thesis. When Foreign Minister Jack Straw criticized a Muslim teacher for wearing the veil in class -- she taught English and her students could not hear her because of the veil -- he touched off a debate about Islam and assimilation. But it rapidly became a shallow exchange because British feminists, fearing accusations of “Islamophobia,” were silent on the subject; the general public was equally intimidated.

Phillips examines this worrisome phenomenon. Most Britons, she believes, simply fail to understand the severity of their situation. In the face of the July 7, 2005 terrorist attack on the London rail system by British Muslim suicide bombers, which killed 57 people and wounded hundreds, Britons placed the blame largely on themselves. “It was because of our involvement in Iraq,” was one such rationalization. This sentiment, according to Phillips, is an outgrowth of the “cultural dominance of the British Left.”

What Britons do not grasp, Phillips argues, is that they are in a war with an enemy that seeks to destroy them and impose an Islamic way of life governed by Sharia law -- the latest polls indicate that 40 to 60 percent of British Muslims want Sharia law to govern Britain -- thereby destroying their democratic institutions and nullifying their individual freedoms. “We do not understand in Britain that we are fighting a religious war. Instead, we’re appeasing it,” Phillips said.

The Islamic war on the West did not begin on 9/11, according to Phillips. It started in 1979, with the Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic revolution in Iran. Khomeini declared his intention to subjugate the West, and his call has been echoed by subsequent Islamic leaders, such as Iran’s current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Saudis, fearful of Shiite dominance in the region and concerned with Khomeini’s impact on Muslims worldwide and the possible destabilization of their kingdom, ignited a race with Shiite Iran that fueled jihadist Islam. The Saudis spent billions spreading their intolerant and anti-Western brand of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism. They funded the anti-Western and anti-Semitic madrassas in Europe and the Indian sub-continent, thereby radicalizing British mosques and Imams, and paving the way for the creation of home-grown British suicide bombers.

At the same time as Muslim radicalism was taking shape, a massive wave of immigration from Islamic lands hit Western Europe. Unlike previous immigrants from Asia, Eastern Europe, or the Caribbean, “Muslim immigrants did not seek to integrate - they sought instead to colonize the host countries.” Britain lost control over its borders, and belief in itself as a proud nation. “Britain,” Phillips said, “has become supra-national, believing in the U.N. and the E.U.” While viewing national particularism as exclusive and discriminatory, Britons celebrate the minority Muslim culture. It is a form of self-hatred that has spread throughout the West.

There has also been a dramatic demographic change. Muslims are now the largest minority faith community in Britain, comprising 3 percent of the population, approximately 2 million strong. In London the Muslim population is about 9 percent, more than 700,000 people. Phillips maintains that most Muslims in Britain are moderates. However, according to the latest British intelligence reports, there are nearly 1,600 potential suicide bombers who are primed and ready to act.

Phillips identifies several specific culprits behind Britain’s current cultural ills. Phillips charges that the British government has not “combated the ideas that are driving Islamic terror,” and that the British authorities have an unduly lenient definition of “moderate,” a distinction afforded to “someone who does not promote violence against Britons.” Thus, the British government regarded Sheikh Yusuf Karadawi, who promoted suicide bombings in Israel as a duty of all Muslims, as a “moderate.”

Another problem is the lack of dissenting voices. Phillips points out that, in contrast to the United States, there is no talk-radio, and no think tanks in Britain to challenge the prevailing views. As a result, America and Israel are demonized, while Islamic extremists escape scrutiny.

Despite the gravity of the situation, Phillips said that she refuses to succumb to fatalism. Asked to comment on Mark Steyn’s new book America Alone, which argues that Europe, disappearing demographically and committing cultural suicide, is all but lost, Phillips replied: “I disagree. I will not give up without a fight to bring Britain to its senses.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Pr ... p?ID=25569

[Dennis Spath]

In my own case, having studied a good deal of Islamic as well as mideast history since 9/11, I find myself in greater fear of Right Wing Christian Fundamentalism and Bush mideast policy than of the so-called Islamo-Fascist "Jihadist" threat.

[pizza]

In my own case, having studied a good deal of Islamic as well as mideast history since 9/11, I find myself in greater fear of Right Wing Christian Fundamentalism and Bush mideast policy than of the so-called Islamo-Fascist "Jihadist" threat.

Yeah, Dennis. Those Christian Fundamentalists are blowing up people right and left. They'll probably get to Tyler, Texas one day. Better play it safe and stay out of sight.

[Barry]

In my own case, having studied a good deal of Islamic as well as mideast history since 9/11, I find myself in greater fear of Right Wing Christian Fundamentalism and Bush mideast policy than of the so-called Islamo-Fascist "Jihadist" threat.

Oy. Vote them out of office. We don't need the military to deal with them. They aren't running around blowing people, including themselves, up. This is the kind of total lack of proportionality that I see on the left a lot (Bush is a fascist, etc.). I probably don't like the agenda of the Christian right any more than Dennis does, but a greater threat to our security and way of life than the Islamofascists? I shudder to think of someone with that kind of attitude ever being in charge of our national security.

[Werner]

Pizza, I can take one lengthy opinion article, but not two in a row! Seriousness of subject noted, though.

But I'm not rewriting history, which I believe we both lived through. The fact is that the Vichy regime was set up by the Germans after the French defeat, and thus reflected the domination of the Germans over the French affairs. That's what determined the (occupied) French opposition to the American landings.

That this was not all there was to the French attitude is exemplified by the Résistance, which you have overlooked.

As for xenophobia, I was not referring to the British attitude, but the tendency to encapsulate one's position in an ideologically isolationist attitude. That's what I thought I read in your post.

[Brendan]

Q. Why did the French plant trees along the Champs Elysees?

A. So the Germans could march in the shade.

[Sapphire]

Pizza

Melanie Phillips is a respected feature writer in the Daily Mail, one of the UK's main right of centre newspapers. As you point out, she has recently published a book called Londonistan, about London being a breeding ground for disaffected Moslem youth. I would say she is on the right wing side of the Daily Mail. I generally agree with much of what she has to say.

As far as I know, she still supports the ongoing campaign in Iraq. However, I reckon she is pretty isolated now on that issue as all the other Mail feature writers are much more openly sceptical about our unqualified continued involvement. Generally speaking, it seems to me that the others have gained the better of the argument, that things are going nowhere and it's time to get out asap in an orderly fashion. There is not much concern about the risks to oil supplies at the grass roots level here.

There was a flurry of interest in her book a few months ago, but as usual with these things attention quickly turns to other things. I would venture that the prevailing mood among the majority of British folk is one of boredom with the whole subject of the Middle East: Iraq, Israel, Islamic Militancy etc. They can't take any more and just wish the subject would go away. There is certainly no enthusiasm for prolonging the Iraq war merely in the hope that peace may descend on the place one day, as no-one seems to have much faith that will ever happen. On the other hand, many folk just don't know how we can get out. The problems seem too big. Meanwhile, Blair keeps mouthing off about staying in Iraq until the "job is done", but most people treat it with a big yawn. Thus, the whole saga just trundles on, with most people completely bored, and certainly feeling disillusioned about getting involved in the first place.


Saphire

[Werner]

For what it's worth, Brendan, I believe the trees were there a long time before the Germans.

Besides, what are you getting at?

[Dennis Spath]

It's obvious, Pizza, that Christian fundamentalists aren't blowing themselves up for the simple reason they fear death....something which always amazed me given the lock they claim to have on Truth, Salvation, Heaven, and the "American Way". It is their preoccupation with "The End Times and Revelation Theology which I find dangerous, and their voting preference for those who would legislate their religious scruples for the coersion and edification of non-believers. "Be Afraid" is the message conveyed by religious and political preachers to their obedient flock, who promise protection lest they be blown to Hell by the Jihadist spawn of the Devil.

[Brendan]

For what it's worth, Brendan, I believe the trees were there a long time before the Germans.

Besides, what are you getting at?

Simply agreeing with Pizza - and popular sentiment - that the French post-War propagnada about the Resistance is largely bogus. Dreyfuss was long beforehand, Vichy was quite popular and French anti-semetism is rife once more.

Q. How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?
A. Who knows? None ever tried.

[Werner]

I seem to remember some heroic Resistance stories that couldn't have been postwar propaganda or bogus.

Yes, Dreyfus was long before the times of any of us, antisemitism is latent in France as elsewhere, - and seems to have a everlasting life of its own despite all we've seen and learned, and most of us have our ideological horses to ride.

There's nothing simple, is there?

Now, if you want to discuss DeGaulle as a cross for wartime or postwar allies to bear..............

[Brendan]

I seem to remember some heroic Resistance stories that couldn't have been postwar propaganda or bogus.

Yes, Dreyfus was long before the times of any of us, antisemitism is latent in France as elsewhere, - and seems to have a everlasting life of its own despite all we've seen and learned, and most of us have our ideological horses to ride.

There's nothing simple, is there?

Now, if you want to discuss DeGaulle as a cross for wartime or postwar allies to bear..............

That the French Resistance existed and perfrmed heroic deeds is not in question. The extent and popularity of it seemed to explode once the Allies landed and defeated the Germans, however. Can't recall the source, but someone said to a general of the Allies something like "No, sir, there are no Collaborators. Now there are only members of the Resistance."

[Sapphire]

Did you folks in the USA ever get to see one of our best TV comedy series called "Allo Allo".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/artic ... 0250.shtml

It was an absolute scream. It was all about occupied France in WWII, centering on a cafe run by Rene. Full of really bizarre characters. German and Italian Officers. The French Resistance. Two zany British soldiers on the run. A very camp German Lieutenant who fancied Rene. The Gestapo cooking up foul plots. A real send-up, if ever there was one.

The expression "good moaning" became famous. This was spoken by a French Gendarme impersonated by a Brit, whose pronunciation of French was very peculiar and highly suspect to say the least.

They used to love Allo Allo in the EU headquarters in Brussels. I used to turn up for the Brits and before we ever started business for the day, the Brits, French, Dutch, Danes, German and other representatives would go into a huddle and have a real laugh over the latest episode. It was almost de rigeur viewing over there. The French really loved it, even though it took the p..s out of them very badly. Then, of course, after coffee - there was never any rush in Brussels - we'd all sit round during the meeting proper and throw insults at each other through the interpretators. Oh what fun.


Saphire

[jack stowaway]

If, just 40-or-so, years ago, you had asked the average European to imagine a time when entire inner cities were Muslim enclaves he or she would have laughed at the notion. To then suggest that Muslims would form the majority of the population in some European countries by the end of the 21st century would have drawn a snort of disbelief.

And yet that is where we are today. In the space of a single short lifetime the West has been changed dramatically and irreversibly. The transformation is profound and irreparable, and perhaps only fully appreciated by those of us old enough, and fortunate enough, to have been raised in a secure and self-confident culture –one not crippled by that most lethally anti-Western of ideologies, multiculturalism together with its bastard off-spring, Tolerance.

In the Western pantheon of virtues, 'Tolerance' has been elevated to supreme place in a bid to make the Islamic colonisation somehow more bearable. From its lofty perch Tolerance overshadows real and enduring values such as truthfulness, attachment to liberty and love of country. In its name, Western society slowly but surely shrinks its claims to pre-eminence and adjusts its core values to appease the never-ending demands of a pre-medieval culture.

Against Western tolerance Islam asserts revealed Truth as found in the Quran. From the Muslim point of view, the literal word of God is not negotiable. Truth trumps all other claims. And so we have a dialogue of the deaf: on one side earnest Western liberals ‘interpreting’ and ‘contextualising’ Islam to make its harsh rigidities more palatable, and on the other, Muslims, insisting all tolerances must conform to the word of God. I leave it to the reader to judge which side is more likely to prevail in any conflict between the two claims.

And because ‘Truth’ covers every exigency, from the site of a new Mosque to the correct wearing of a turban (see below), even minor civil differences are quickly escalated into a battle between faith and unbelief. What chance a civil, tolerant society will emerge from this collision of faiths, cultures and values?

The pre-medieval mentality of Islam may be illustrated by the following extract -- taken from an Islamic website dictating correct dress for male muslims. The writer gives several reasons why turbans are an essential element of male dress, concluding his justification with the following historical ‘proof’ ….

It is further established from countless narrations that the turban is the garb of angels and that the angels wore it at the battles of Badr, Hunayn, and Uhud.

The exact dimensions of the correct size of turban are painstakingly laid out, the ideal being the one worn by Mohammed. The colour of turban is also prescribed, the writer devoting thousands of words to prove that the Angels, in fact, wore yellow turbans. The moral rightness of wearing a turban with its ‘tail’ hanging down is extensively debated. The author concludes his tract by warning that the turban must be placed on the head while standing, not sitting.

Throughout, the author supports his position with learned quotes from hadith, summa, the Prophet and various learned authorities. He also quotes approvingly from fatwahs against bare heads.

This is the mentality which seeks to impose itself on the West.

(Lest anyone think I am making this up, or that the tract is anything less than deadly serious they can read the article, in all its mind-numbing scholasticism, for themselves at

http://www.geocities.com/~abdulwahid/mu ... dress.html )

Pondering the present state of Europe, one cannot but help recall the words of Winston Churchill. Almost one-hundred years ago Churchill foresaw the immense dangers Islam posed to the West and drew a contrast with the fall of Rome. The only guarantee against a similar disaster repeating itself was, he concluded, Western military and technological superiority.

Of course, the statesman could hardly have imagined a time when this military superiority would be rendered impotent by the Trojan Horse of mass migration. And now that the enemy are inside the gates, what can we expect of the future?

For a start, Churchill’s cautiously optimistic conclusion will need to be revised. …

“No stronger retrograde force [than Islam] exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

That is the way the Western world ended. Not with a bang but a whimper.

[Sapphire]

Jack


My view is that we have gone multi-culturalism mad in this country. There is too much emphasis on “toleration” which has connotations of "acceptance". It should not mean this at all but instead should mean “allow” or "put up with". The UK has been a Christian country since time immemorial, and therefore the Christian faith and its system of ethics should take precedence above every other religion. Why should we have to tolerate huge Mosques sprouting up in our City Centres? Can anyone imagine trying to build a Cathedral in Mecca? The proposers would have hands chopped off, at least. Also, why should we have to tolerate Muslim women with walking around our shopping centres like slaves, wearing burkas, symbols of female oppression dating back to pre-medieval desert society? It's an insult to our social values. As mentioned in the previous post, our forbears would be utterly astonished that we now live in such a society. As stated, even 40 years ago they would not believe such a development was possible now.

They should be told they are welcome if they integrate into our society, but no deal if they want to impose the worst excesses of their culture onto ours. I would be quite happy to see a stop on any more coming in, quite frankly, except where it was necessary on strict humanitarian grounds. They have very tough immigration laws in USA and Australia. We need the same, or even tougher ones, given the over-crowded nature of our islands. This is a factor that many USA and Australians may not appreciate, with their vast open spaces. It's not like that here.

Few, if any western nations are in favour of their nation's history being completely demolished in favour of the Islamisation. Only this country is allowing this on such a generous scale, it seems to me. We have Muslims flocking here in droves, because they get such generous accommodation in terms of their worship and dress standards etc. In addition, they are a cheeky lot. In a recent survey, 4 out of 10 British Muslims said they want Sharia law introduced into parts of the country, where they live. The same survey showed a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London in July 2005, even though said 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity (but they would say that wouldn’t they?).

Some people they think they problems. Think how you would feel if Macy’s was replaced by a comparable size Mosque? Or if there was a major poll in Australia showing that 40% of your Muslims want Sharia law introduced in parts of Sydney. Alternatively, how would USA citizens feel if 20% of Muslims said - one year after 9/11 - they had sympathy with the aims behind the 9/11 attack, even though they thought this particular attack was over the top? You would be utterly reviled. Well, how do you think we like it? So let us cut the crap and face up to this threat. We are more exposed than you people. In Holland they have an even bigger Muslim percentage than here, and yet their policies against the worst excesses of Muslim culture have been attacked by some. If you feel like having a few hundred thousand more Muslims in USA please ask your Government to relax its immigrations rules. I mean it: see what answer you get.


Saphire

[lmpower]

I largely agree with Jack. If his statement is over the top, it is only by a very little bit. Yes, environmental problems could also be just as serious in the long run. Werner, I remember feeling panic as a child that the Japs were sweeping through Asia. In retrospect they never had a chance. The sleeping giant beat the hell out of them. I think Communism was a bit of a paper tiger. Their system was deeply flawed. Muslims have babies and Communists have abortions. I remember a Czech woman being given the bad news that she was pregnant. It was like being told she had cancer. Islamic resurgence is part of a broader question. That question is the role of religion in human affairs. Evangelical and Muslim fundamentalism are part of a worldwide reaction against moral breakdown and the disintegration of society. In the long run demographics are more important than weapons systems. If you don't produce babies, your kind won't be around very long. Synonyms for multiculturalism might be balkanization or fragmentation. Some degree of homogeneity and coherence may be desirable for running a civilization.

[pizza]

CNN Finally Wakes up!


Arutz Sheva - IsraelNationalNews.com

CNN Exposes Islamic Incitement
Sunday, November 26, 2006 / 5 Kislev 5767

Shocked at never having seen scenes of Islamic hatred and incitement before, show host Glenn Beck hosted an hour-long special designed to show Americans that which they have never seen.

Several days ago, CNN broadcast in the United States a Glenn Beck special entitled: "Exposed: The Extremist Agenda." The show featured several shocking video clips of sheikhs being cheered as they vow to "cut off the Jew's head," Iranian President Ahmedinejad preaching hatred and threatening war against the West, and little children expressing the abhorrence for Jews with which they have imbued.

Beck, whose syndicated radio show is broadcast on 200 stations around the United States, emphasizes throughout the program that the American people are simply not aware of the threat posed to them by radical Islam. He and his guests attribute this to purposeful camouflaging of the message by people such as Ahmedinejad, the American tendency towards political correctness, and dangerous complacency similar to that of the 1930's in the face of the Nazi menace.

The entire show can be seen at "www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PWIK8YTZS8&eurl="

The show begins with a wildly dramatic sheikh preaching to a large crowd in a Baghdad mosque and railing against "the Americans and their president and the British and their allies and the Zionists, the spoiled offspring of this entity! [The sheikh says:] Allahu Akbar! If Allah permits us, O Nation of Mohammad, even the stone will say, 'O Muslim, a Jew is hiding behind me, come and cut off his head,' and we shall cut off his head! By Allah [brandishing a sword], we shall cut it off! [scenes of a cheering audience] O Jews, Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Jihad for the sake of Allah! Victory to Allah! Allahu Akbar! The believers [Muslims] will triumph!"

Scenes of television programs purporting to show Israelis stealing Palestinian children's eyes, punching old women, and stealing Arab blood are shown. State-owned media in Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority run cartoons of US President Bush, Secretary of State Rice and Ariel Sharon dripping with blood and the like. "News reports" are shown reporting as fact items such as Coca-Cola's willingness to spend billions of dollars to topple Iran, or the "fact" that Pepsi stands for 'Pay Each Penny, Save Israel.'

Beck's background commentary states: "Coca-Cola wants to topple Iran. Obviously ridiculous. But the average Iranian citizen has no reason not to believe these claims."

Iranian President Ahmadinejad
Beck later says, "Iran's President Ahmadinejad has recently said that his country's nuclear program will be up and running by the end of March... The International Atomic Energy Agency has found traces of plutonium and enriched uranium at an Iranian nuclear waste site. Still, there are those who say that Iran should be a partner in constructing the future of the Middle East. Those people are probably only seeing the flowery interviews Ahmadinejad has given to Brian Williams or Mike Wallace here in the U.S. Unfortunately, as many of you will see now for the very first time, they are not hearing the whole story."

Iranian President Ahmadinejad in an interview: "Our message is the message of peace and brotherhood with all nations, with all people. We love the American people as we love our own."

Ahmadinejad in a speech in Iran: "If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender!"

Ahmadinejad in an interview: "So what I'm saying is quite fair. We want peace to be established there [in Israel]. We care for the Jews who live under pressure there, as well."

Ahmadinejad in a speech in Iran: "I have said to the leaders of some western countries, stop supporting these corrupt people. Behold the rage of the Muslim people is accumulating! The rage of the Muslim people may soon reach the point of explosion!"

Cheering crowd: "Death to Israel! Death to Israel! Death to America! Death to America!"

A commentator: "I think the threat that he [Ahmadinejad] poses is similar to the threat posed in the rise of Hitler in the 1930s when the world just sat relatively silent, silently watching Germany arm itself, watching Germany pose a threat and ultimately carry out that threat against its neighbors, and the world reacted much too late."

Binyamin Netanyahu, Author of Terrorism: How the West Can Win
Interviewing former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Beck says: "You have said in a speech in Los Angeles that this is 1938 all over again and they are preparing a Holocaust, the second Holocaust. How frustrating is it that you can't get people to pay attention to that?"

Netanyahu: "It's frustrating. It makes you understand how the `30s happened, because Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, is openly saying, while he denies the original Holocaust, he's openly saying that he's preparing another Holocaust to wipe Israel off the face of the earth with Iranian atomic bombs.

Beck: "I talked to Condoleezza Rice, and... I said, 'Look, this has not stopped. This guy has a doomsday apocalyptic view. He is clearly saying it.' And she said to me that we need to take him at his word but watch his actions, not necessarily all of his words. I think that's suicide."

Netanyahu: "I think we should watch his actions and listen to his words. His words are matched by his actions. Iran is racing to build power plants, nuclear power plants. They have more oil coming out of their ears. They don't need nuclear power plants... They need and are seeking to build nuclear weapons. I believe the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, just found traces of plutonium and uranium for the production of atomic bombs. These bombs are, in the first instance, aimed at Israel. Make no mistake about it. But they don't intend to just hit Israel. Iran is gearing up to produce 25 atomic bombs a year, 250 bombs in a decade. The missiles already reach into every European capital and they are blooming to reach the eastern seaboard of the United States, i.e., New York City, the studio we're sitting in. So this is like Nazism: they start with the hatred of the Jews, and they want to annihilate the Jews. But that's only the first stop. Their goal is western civilization."

Beck: "...This man has an apocalyptic view. He has already said that he wants to march in through ancient Babylon and set up a global Islamic empire. Do you believe that? Do you believe this guy has that apocalyptic doomsday view?"

Netanyahu: "I read an interview with a Holocaust survivor about a year ago in one of the European papers. And the interviewer asked the Holocaust survivor, 'What is your main lesson from the Holocaust?' And the Holocaust survivor said, 'My main lesson is that if somebody tells you he's going to exterminate you, believe him.' I believe that the president of Iran intends to exterminate Israel."

Suicide Bombers to Hit U.S.
Apparently-genuine video clips are shown of Moslem terrorists setting out on suicide-bombing missions, with background commentary emphasizing such attacks as "the ultimate smart bomb," "the most perfect precision weapon of our time," and "the apotheosis of hatred."

U.S. Army Lt.-Col. Ralph Peters sums up, "You've got religious faith, primal hatred and the promise of ecstasy combined... What a powerful, powerful incentive to kill yourself and be a martyr to your family, to your friends, to your civilization, to your god."

Beck: "Although suicide bombers have been used in parts of the Middle East for years, some people believe that, because of how effective they are at spreading fear, it's only a matter of time before the phenomenon reaches the U.S."

Nonie Darwish
The Moslem founder of Arabs for Israel and outspoken daughter of a Moslem shahid (martyr), Nonie Darwish: "Americans must realize the danger. It's very important we understand it is a major fight, and it [crept up] on us. We didn't take it seriously. And now after 9/11, we must take it seriously."

Walid Shoebat, former terrorist: "[When] I was 6 years old, all kids [in kindergarten had] to sing a song, it was called, 'Arabs are Beloved, and Jews are Dogs' ... By the time you got to high school, the songs got even more... calling the Jews all killers."

Beck (voice-over): "By hiding propaganda in songs, children almost become immune to what they're actually saying. And when children hear the same propaganda in their songs as they do from their parents, it quickly becomes fact. Listen to this Kuwaiti sheikh preaching to parents about what to teach their children."

Sheikh: "O mothers and fathers, you must train your children every night before they go to bed to go on raids in order to liberate Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa. And when he goes to sleep after reading the Koran and the bedside verses, they should recite together with you the prayer of martyrdom, 'Allah, I pray to you in all honesty to be martyred for your sake.' Do this every night."

Brigitte Gabriel
Beck, introducing Brigitte Gabriel: "She grew up in Lebanon, was a victim early on of radical Islam. She`s now a U.S. citizen and author of a new, bestselling book, 'Because They Hate.'"

Gabriel reads from a text book that describes "Jews and Christians cursed by Allah and turned into apes and pigs... The lesson explains that Jews and Christians have sinned by accepting polytheism and, therefore, incurred Allah's wrath. To punish them, Allah had turned them into apes and pigs... This is what the West needs to understand and realize about Islam. We are dealing with a radical ideology right now spreading all throughout the world with one goal, and that is the establishing of an Islamic caliphate throughout the world."

Beck: "Wait, explain that, because most people don't even know what that is."

Gabriel: "A caliphate is an Islamic government ruled by Sharia law where everybody has to obey and live under Islam. In Islam, there is no difference between the state and the religion. The religion is the state, and the state is the religion... And this is why we are seeing suicide bombers right now who are spreading throughout the world, screaming, 'Allahu Akbar' as their last words, praising Allah as they die and go to Heaven. But this is what they're taught from the time they were little, from the time they were children... Our [Lebanese] government, which controlled the media - what we used to watch on television at night was 'Israel is the Name of the Devil,' 'The Jews are Evil,' and 'The Jews are Barbaric.' The only time we will have peace in the Middle East is when we kill all of the Jews and throw them into the sea. This was the propaganda being espoused all throughout the media."

Gabriel: "...Political correctness is killing us. Political correctness is the disease that is killing the West. It is the apathy by which the Muslims are killing us one by one. We have got to throw it in the garbage where it belongs. People have to develop the backbone to stand up and identify the enemy, because the West right now is plagued with Islamofascism, a disease worse than cancer, that is going to kill our body unless we fight it and kill it first. And unless people come to that understanding -- and hopefully we [won't] have to suffer a nuclear attack on American soil nor on British soil or any other westernized nation -- but this is where we're heading. And the media is the first front in getting the message to the American public, and it is their duty to do that."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/print ... &id=116291

[living_stradivarius]

Now all we need is a non-radical/sensible public figure to defend this position.

[Sapphire]

Jack

It looks like you are largely preaching to the converted, at least among the few who seem interested in this topic here.

The "youtube" video referred to in Pizza's post (two back) is shocking, but the contents are of no surprise to me as I have been fully aware of these hostile attitudes towards the West for a long while now, from my reading and casual observation. However, the video may come as a surprise to many, especially those with very libertarian views about religious integration. The latter don't know the true menace posed by allowing these people too much of a foot in the door. They're not just seeking freedom of dress ware and such like, but the ultimate aim is the implementation of Sharia law universally. From a completely different perspective, it's similar to the former march towards the "dictatorship of the proletariat" under Marxism; i.e as a process that will happen and must happen as part of some historically determined (or in the present case will-of god type) phenomenon.

I fear, sadly, that much of all this goes way over the heads of most Western folk. They're just not interested, or find the concepts of religious domination so alien or fanciful that they can't get their minds around it. Even if they watched the youtube video, they still wouldn't understand the crazy mentality (or intense relgious zeal) of these people, and would tend to think it's just a small bunch of fringe loonies acting a bit weird. Little do they know! The Dutch at least seem to have bitten the bullet (re the burka thread).

Thanks for raising the subject. It's right at the heart of this "war on terror" thing. There's only one good aspect: our political leaders know about it and are doing something about it internationally, even though I believe the campaign in Iraq has gone off the rails and is doing more harm than good in fuelling this anti-West feeling. Nevertheless, I don't think enough is being at home to quell the continuing encroachment of Islamic culture into our society. How to do that without being accused of being religiously intolerant is the problem.


Saphire

[jack stowaway]

Jack

Nevertheless, I don't think enough is being at home to quell the continuing encroachment of Islamic culture into our society. How to do that without being accused of being religiously intolerant is the problem.

Saphire

Its a label we are going to have to wear, along with other epithets such as 'racist', 'anti-Muslim bigot' etc etc. Those who quarrel with a nation's right to define its own composition will hurl stones regardless.

As a poster above remarked, a certain amount of ethnic homogeneity may be essential to preserving a harmonious society, one culturally and consensually at ease with itself. Japan certainly thinks so. And African nations hell-bent on kicking white Africans off their lands wouldn't disagree.

And by the by, for muslims to call anyone 'religiously intolerant' is [bleakly] humourous.

[burnitdown]

I have argued previously in these fora that the great issue of our time, the central historical fact of the present age, is the insidious and irreversible conquest-by-stealth of Western Civilization by Islam. To my mind, it is the only issue --everything else is sidebar to this climactic narrative. 'Climactic' since it signals the end trajectory of that great arc of Christian culture which has so profoundly shaped Western society, culminating in the technologically advanced, liberal societies we inhabit today.

I dunno if you can blame the Vandals for what happened to Rome. It was already dying. Neither can I blame the Muslims for trying to take us over. We forgot the necessity of making ourselves better, and settled down to divide up the money we'd made. Our society hasn't done anything great for almost 200 years... are we in decline? You bet. Will they come take over? Not just Islam, but every other group that perceives itself as "have not" and us as "haves."

(To make fun of myself: add "Plato says" before the above...)

[Barry]

I dunno if you can blame the Vandals for what happened to Rome. It was already dying. Neither can I blame the Muslims for trying to take us over. We forgot the necessity of making ourselves better, and settled down to divide up the money we'd made. Our society hasn't done anything great for almost 200 years... are we in decline? You bet. Will they come take over? Not just Islam, but every other group that perceives itself as "have not" and us as "haves."

(To make fun of myself: add "Plato says" before the above...)

Two-hundred years? Oh come on. We built the most powerful nation and successful society since Rome.
But I agree with you that we're in decline while others are on the rise and that we're too soft to do anything about it. The way we've held ourselves back with PC rules of engagement in recent years has been a disaster, both in terms of actual results and the message it sends out to our enemies around the world.

[Reed]

Our society hasn't done anything great in 200 yrs?

Abolishing slavery, curing polio, the green revolution in agriculture, extending the franchise (including to the 51% of the population known as women), expanding literacy, antibiotics, indoor plumbing, this internet thingie you're writing your anti-modernist thoughts on . . . etc.

Would you rather have lived 200 yrs ago or today? Jeez, I thought I was an old crank, but I reluctantly yield my crown to you.

[Madame]

Our society hasn't done anything great in 200 yrs?

Abolishing slavery, curing polio, the green revolution in agriculture, extending the franchise (including to the 51% of the population known as women), expanding literacy, antibiotics, indoor plumbing, this internet thingie you're writing your anti-modernist thoughts on . . . etc.

Would you rather have lived 200 yrs ago or today? Jeez, I thought I was an old crank, but I reluctantly yield my crown to you.

Ahem ... last time I looked, Fleming was a Scottish scientist who is credited with the discovery of penicillin while working in London. Oxford research scientists (led by AUSTRALIAN Dr. Florey) developed the means for mass production of the drug. Even the sulfa drugs, less widely used now, are the result of German and French research scientists efforts.

As to the "green" revolution in agriculture -- I'm not convinced that the US is as much a leader as a follower. But if you'll give Al Gore the credit, I'll yield on that one

The polio vaccine was indeed developed by the two Americans Salk and Sabin, and perhaps what makes it feel even more "American" is the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, later known as the March of Dimes, founded by FDR. Remember those little cards with slots for dimes?

As far as women's suffrage -- the credit has to go to the women who relentlessly pursued the right to vote against amazing opposition --- I believe politicians' grudging support was more self-serving than benevolent. The US was hardly a leader, it followed the model and timeline of most of Europe.

"Great" can be a matter of opinion -- but that's not the real point. The fact is that I'd rather live here than anywhere else in the world ... and I think we need to keep our house in order from today forward so that I can continue to feel that way. <it's ALL about me, you know >

[Corlyss_D]

Neither can I blame the Muslims for trying to take us over. We forgot the necessity of making ourselves better, and settled down to divide up the money we'd made. Our society hasn't done anything great for almost 200 years... are we in decline? You bet. Will they come take over? Not just Islam, but every other group that perceives itself as "have not" and us as "haves."

Feelin' a little white guilt there, Steve? I hope you are just saying this for the sake of argument and that your comments are not really an example of how dreadful modern history education is in our schools.

[Corlyss_D]

Our society hasn't done anything great in 200 yrs?

Abolishing slavery, curing polio, the green revolution in agriculture, extending the franchise (including to the 51% of the population known as women), expanding literacy, antibiotics, indoor plumbing, this internet thingie you're writing your anti-modernist thoughts on . . . etc.

Would you rather have lived 200 yrs ago or today? Jeez, I thought I was an old crank, but I reluctantly yield my crown to you.

Ahem ... last time I looked, Fleming was a Scottish scientist who is credited with the discovery of penicillin while working in London. Oxford research scientists (led by AUSTRALIAN Dr. Florey) developed the means for mass production of the drug. Even the sulfa drugs, less widely used now, are the result of German and French research scientists efforts.

As to the "green" revolution in agriculture -- I'm not convinced that the US is as much a leader as a follower. But if you'll give Al Gore the credit, I'll yield on that one

The polio vaccine was indeed developed by the two Americans Salk and Sabin, and perhaps what makes it feel even more "American" is the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, later known as the March of Dimes, founded by FDR. Remember those little cards with slots for dimes?

So you are saying that because some of these accomplishments were by individuals that the society from which the individuals sprang is irrelevant?

The Green Revolution in agriculture has nothing to do with Al Gore or environmentalism and is indeed pretty much an American product.

The US was hardly a leader, it followed the model and timeline of most of Europe.

Not so. New Jersy gave women the vote in 1790. The Utah and Wyoming Territories granted women the vote in 1869, long before any European nations. Several European states, not including France, gave their women the vote only around WW1, about the same time the US passed the Constitutional Amendment doing the same. Many were a good deal later. The European record is far spottier and later than you suggest.

[Reed]

I thought by "we" you meant western civ. in general, not just the US.

But I still think you're a bit too hard on the US.

[BWV 1080]

Anyway a vote for Women's Suffrage in the 1910's was a vote for the temperance movement and prohibition, the two issues were linked together which was not great for Women.

Anyway the human condition has improved more in the last 200 years than at any time prior, as the opening of Peter Bernstein's Birth of Plenty states:

http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/404/CH1.HTM

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together.
—Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party

It’s all too tempting to lament the state of the world, particularly when you focus on the melodramas of mankind—violent conflicts, large-scale malfeasance and failure, and the latest installments in the age-old racial and religious hatreds that permeate the human story.

A paragon of such fashionable pessimism has been journalist Anthony Lewis, who, at the end of a long and distinguished career, was asked whether the world had gotten to be a better place since he had begun covering it a half century earlier:

I have lost my faith in the ideal of progress. I mean that in the sense that it was used at the beginning of the twentieth century, that mankind is getting wiser and better and all—how, how can you think that after Rwanda and Bosnia and a dozen other places where these horrors have occurred?1

Mr. Lewis’ problem is that his subjective criterion—that mankind has not achieved moral perfection as defined in Ivy League universities and the editorial suites of the New York Times—sets the bar too high. Mr. Lewis seems unaware that we can measure the welfare of mankind; in fact, we can do it superbly. Contrary to his gloomy impressions, the second half of the twentieth century was far less murderous than the first. Further, the proportion of the world’s population subjected to totalitarianism, genocide, starvation, war, and pestilence has been steadily decreasing over the past two centuries, with most of the improvement coming in the half century that so depressed Mr. Lewis.

Consider that from 1950 to 1999, average life expectancy in the developed world increased from 66 years to 78 years; in the developing world, it increased from 44 years to 64 years. The nearly universal Western outcome of living to old age, rather than resulting from the rare stroke of luck, may be the greatest accomplishment of the past fifty years. Or consider that over the same period, the world’s real per capita gross domestic product (GDP)—the amount of goods and services produced by the average person, adjusted for inflation—nearly tripled. Or that by the year 2000, real per capita GDP in Mexico was significantly greater than that of the world leader in 1900, Great Britain. And if you’re not impressed with mankind’s material progress in the last fifty years, as measured in dollars and cents, you should at least note that almost any measure of social progress you wish to examine—infant mortality, literacy and mortality rates, or educational levels—has dramatically improved in all but a few still-benighted corners of the planet.2