For the last few weeks I’ve been sitting on a couple of articles about Europe, Islam, and Western civilization, waiting for a moment to link them and talk about them.
After Paris — again, Paris — this is as good a time as any for linking:
ZeroHedge: “The Death of Europe.”
National Review: “Is the West Slip, Slip, Slipping Away?”
If Western civilization is dying, it’s slowly destroying itself from within. Murderous Islamists who won’t tolerate any views other than their own are merely the opportunistic barbarians at the gates.
But there is no doubt that these savages, who come from or are inspired by lands where either tyranny or chaos — or both — reign, want to tear down the West down to their barbaric level.
Yes, I know that governments of the West are at least partially responsible, sometimes largely responsible, for reducing the Middle East to chaos.
However — and I’m not supposed to say this because it goes against freedomista PC — Islam itself contains a poison at its heart. It’s always been there, this mindless submission to “divine” authority OR ELSE, this “conquer by the sword” mentality.
Christianity had it, too. Much of Christianity’s history was as bloody as anything the Islamists have going today. But the Reformation and the Enlightenment pulled Christianity’s fangs — and separated religion and government. Which is as it should be despite all the wails and protests from would-be Republican theocrats. Now individuals are free to choose Christianity or not, free to think about it, criticize it, adopt it, love it, despise it as they wish. Millions benefit from it — in freedom. Others leave it — in freedom. No slaughter required.
Nobody is even attempting to pull Islam’s giant fangs. On the contrary, countries are stupidly opening their gates to let the bloody monster in. All in the name of some of the very Western values (tolerance, humanitarianism, the guilt of supposed privilege, etc.) that the monster either wishes to destroy or will cynically use for its own devouring ends.
“…countries are stupidly opening their gates to let the bloody monster in.”
I live in one of those countries (Canada) that will soon open the flood gates to 25,000+ refugees. In Germany around 10% to 15% of the refugees they took in have gone dark and off grid. Seeing the European experience, I think that Canada will be in for a rough ride concerning the refugees and that there will be more attacks like Paris but in places like Montreal and Toronto. All because we have a young inexperienced Prime Minister who likes Muslims.
One of the things that came out of last night’s Paris attacks for me was a phone call. A friend who works on and lives next to a military base called and begged me for a firearm and ammo plus some training on how to use it. He is afraid that when the refugees arrive there will be similar shenanigans to what happened in Paris. What was strikingly different about this request was that his wife is very anti-gun ownership and she was the one who asked him to ask me. Yep we are living in very interesting times.
What a coincidence (not) that I have been brooding over the same topic.
MJR: On that subject we were trading emails over recently, maybe it’s better that certain items stay close to home, hm?
OMG Claire, you get it; you really, really get it.
Radical Islamists perfectly fit Glubb’s description of unschooled people coming seemingly out of nowhere. http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf Thanks again MJR; it’s been great fun reading.
They also perfectly fit Kornbluth’s Frontier League fighters http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/0671698265/0671698265___7.htm
And we perfectly fit Glubb’s description of the Age of Decadence. Khruschev’s famous prediction that we would rot from within was completely logical, although his 50 year estimate was off. We just as perfectly fit Pat Buchanan’s assessment in Death of the West http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_17?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=death+of+the+west+patrick+buchanan&sprefix=death+of+the+west+patrick+buchanan%2Caps%2C352 (available through Living Freedom links).
And by virtually all indications we have a president who foments this behavior and is determined, in violation of law, to bring as many Muslims here as possible. Yes, most are peaceful, but if it only took 3% of our population to actively fight the Revolutionary War, then it won’t take many of them to become a serious force to be reckoned with. And over half of them would prefer Sharia law to our Constitution. I often think of G. Gordon Liddy’s admonition that if you pour dirty water into clean water, you get dirty water. Muslims in this country haven’t yet reached a critical mass, although they may already have in much of Europe.
Our president refuses to use the term “Radical Islam” but has no problem sticking a single finger up in the air. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/obama_and_the_muslim_gang_sign.html
As George Jones so well put it, it’s time to read the writing on the wall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BPRkCTxQ00
The problem as I see it is that “countries” (government bullies) have been allowed to build fences and gates (“borders”) in the first place, which they then claim overrides private property rights.
“Borders” are imaginary and can’t substitute for property lines. It’s not about “open borders”, it about no (imaginary, government) “borders” at all- about seeing the “borders” for what they are, and turning away from them and toward what actually works: private property.
If private property were respected (including the right to violently defend your property with the weapon of your choosing) “immigration” could never become an issue. Either each individual is where they have a right to be (ownership, a rental agreement, or permission of the owner), or they are trespassing and subject to self defensive action. Somehow the opinions of bullies calling themselves “government”, through them drawing lines on the map, have displaced this, and here is the result. And it will keep being the result no matter what anti-immigrant policies “governments” make up- because every anti-immigrant policy chips away at private property rights just a bit more.
There will always be bad guys violating property and initiating force. You can’t defeat them by embracing them, and support for government policies is embracing the bad guys.
Of course they were Muslims. The U.S. gov has not been bombing, subverting, droning, or invading Christian countries. I’ll bet most of the attacks on farmer settlements in the Great American West were done by Native Americans for the same reason. Just a hunch.
Kent — In theory, I agree with you. Too bad we don’t live in a theoretical world, but one that already and firmly has those two incompatible features: porous borders and welfare states. Not to mention governments committed to a warped statist version of multiculturalism.
Joel — Well said. I admit that my own “inner Homer Simpson” made some noises in my head. But you’re right about why eight murderous creeps can set a whole culture trembling.
I said this before and was accused of both blaming the victim and being a collectivist, but I think one of the major things that needs to happen is a huge Enlightenment-style reform within the Islamic world that makes terrorism less appealing and acceptable. Don’t see much chance of that happening any time soon, if ever. Meanwhile …
“And by virtually all indications we have a president who foments this behavior and is determined, in violation of law, to bring as many Muslims here as possible.”
Thank you, Shel, for the v*te of confidence and the good links. What’s even more remarkably bizarre than Obama’s behavior is the fact that heads of state all over Europe (with a few exceptions) are doing the same.
I can think of many reasons, but all smack of exactly the sort of conspiratorial thinking I prefer not to drown myself in.
Ron Johnson — If the U.S. gov is responsible for damaging the Muslim world (which it surely is), then how does it just naturally follow that Muslims will attack innocent concert goers and sports fans in Paris?
(ADDED: I rewrote this comment completely, but the question is still the same.)
Claire,
You got one thing wrong:
“barbarians at the gates”
they are already inside.
The WaPost says Muslims around the world are condemning the attacks, and of course that’s certainly true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/14/how-muslims-around-the-world-condemned-the-paris-attacks/
But look at the line CAIR is using to supposedly “condemn” the acts — a hashtag being picked up by religionists:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/14/the-hashtag-that-cair-is-promoting-following-paris-attacks/
#terrorhasnoreligion
That’s nothing but denial. Highly self-serving denial.
It’s not like the world is full of mass murdering creeps shouting “Hail Richard Dawkins!” Or “Praise Buddha!” as they slaughter, is it?
#terrorismhasnoreligion avoids the problem and avoids any real attempt to solve or deal with it. And although CAIR issued a condemnation along with it, the hashtag is a bloody lie.
If I may interject a little optimism…
There are between 8 or 10… or maybe more, different “flavors” of Islam, and they all seem to hate each other as much or more than they hate everyone else. That’s been going on for many centuries, and I doubt any one of them will emerge as a majority, let alone a cohesive influence. They kill more of their own among the factions than they do anyone else – and have for a very long time.
I’ve worked with a good number of Muslims over the years, and the one characteristic I remember the most is their relative indifference to life itself. Even the seemingly peaceful kind seem to be sincerely embedded into fatalism, as well as this passion to impose their views on others. Seems to me this is not a recipe for long term success. Bloody, messy and terrible in the meantime, but not permanent. They were never even able to impose that totally in their own lands all this time.
Looking over the news about this rampage, it is striking that not ONE of them that I’ve seen even mentions the remote possibility of people being armed to defend themselves. The stupid runs so deep.
But I wonder what most ordinary people are thinking… those who know their governments can’t and won’t protect them. Bet the black market for guns is in serious overdrive.
Mark Steyn says, “The barbarians are inside and there are no gates.”
http://www.steynonline.com/7293/the-barbarians-are-inside-and-there-are-no-gates
Claire, in answer to your question, no, there is no logical continuum from our government (and our allies like France and England) bombing the crap out of Muslim countries and Muslims reacting by shooting up a concert in Paris. The Muslims lashing out at innocent civilians is about as rational as the U.S. attacking Iraq for 9/11.
Collectivism cuts both ways.
Good articles, Claire. (I had read “The Death of Europe” before.)
Joel said, “Mightn’t it be possible to make terrorism a less attractive tactic by removing the willingness to stampede?”
Yes. “Terror” stems not from the terrorist, but from those who are terrorized; it’s an emotional reaction, not an action.
This is not just about France; ISIS (and those influenced by ISIS) has found its way to Europe, to America, and wherever it can infiltrate. The aggressor has declared itself. The more we allow, the harder it will be to stop as it spreads itself around the world. They have even told us their plans – for Islam, and for the world. (And whether America or any country is a governed nation or a geographical area is immaterial in this context.)
Diplomacy with the Middle East is no longer effective (and is a farce, anyway). If we’re going to war with ISIS, let’s do it! Call out the Middle Eastern countries that have played the Western world for a fool, and demand they take sides. They’re biding their time until they – each country – can place itself in a stronger position to declare against us. (A position that we have given them.) Why wait for their strength?
I personally don’t give a damn what they believe – it’s their actions that speak for them. And they have DECLARED WAR against us.
I don’t know if it’s the good or the bad Muslims who are inundating Europe (possibly both; the bad to infiltrate Europe, the good to leave their country before it’s destroyed by ISIS or by the Western world), but Europe tied its own hands when it became the EU. Now the countries are left in the position of board members fighting for their individual careers, but having to think as a collective mindset. That dichotomy will never work. (I absolutely agree with Mark Steyn’s “The Barbarians Are Inside, And There Are No Gates.”)
How long can the world take it? How long do We, The People in every country tolerate the frustrating and debilitating political and economic policies that have brought us down to this state of affairs?
The only way to fight a war is… FIGHT IT.
“The Muslims lashing out at innocent civilians is about as rational as the U.S. attacking Iraq for 9/11.”
Sadly true, that. Too bad that in each case the doers of the evil deeds can’t be held accountable.
One f the “amazing” characteristics of the situation is how much MSM condemnation there is for any government not accepting “enough” of the refugees, and the complete silence when it comes to the regime causing the refugees to flee.
But the Reformation and the Enlightenment pulled Christianity’s fangs — and separated religion and government.
True, but I think it was not the Reforming and Enlightening that occurred, but the splintering of Christianity into so may denominations that none held power. The large majority of people in the U.S. who consider themselves “Christian” are not a “Christian Majority” as much as they are a collection of minorities, who can’t cooperate enough to share Sunday services, much less run a national government.
Hence ML’s optimism.
I know someone who believes that if Israel was just swept out of the way there would be peace in the Middle East. I think the inter-Arabian bloodbath would just accelerate.
[Maine’s generous welfare policies began collapsing once Somali Muslims swarmed in to take advantage of them.]
Uh, this is a good thing, right? 🙂
[Under Islamic law, it’s better for Mohammed to sell drugs than to pay taxes.]
Muslims are taking a page right out of the libertarian/anarchist playbook.
[No one wonders what happened to the fossilized idea of legal immigration…]
Or the even older idea of unrestricted immigration. “Legal” immigration only reared its ugly head when the European states started showering residents with socialist bennies. Before then immigration was self-regulating; people came only if there was a place for them, or moved on if it didn’t work out.
Of course I could be wrong (please correct me if I am). But that is my impression from my reading.
“In the middle half of the nineteenth century (between 1820 to 1870) over seven and a half million immigrants came to the United States — more than doubling the entire population of the country.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Americans
“In the 35 years before Ellis Island opened, more than eight million immigrants arriving in New York City had been processed by New York State officials at Castle Garden Immigration Depot in Lower Manhattan, just across the bay.[23] The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890, and Congress appropriated $75,000 to construct America’s first federal immigration station on Ellis Island.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Island
That means prior to 1890, immigration in the US was a state matter, not federal.
“History of Immigration Laws in France
1932 First French law establishing quotas for immigrants: limited immigration to foreign workers with work identification cards.”
https://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/frenchmi.htm
Can you imagine? Before socialism, France got along fine without immigration laws.
Keep in mind the entity we are looking to, to solve this problem. Our friend, the US federal government. Kinda like hiring the Mafia. Remember what Harry Browne said about “If I were King?”
Well, at least back in 1939, our government managed to keep the Jews out.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005267
[A friend who works on and lives next to a military base called and begged me for a firearm and ammo plus some training on how to use it.]
Every cloud has a silver lining…
[Kent — In theory, I agree with you. Too bad we don’t live in a theoretical world, but one that already and firmly has those two incompatible features: porous borders and welfare states.]
This sounds like the arguments for sensible gun control.
We have a government that occupies Muslim countries for oil, that advances imperialism everywhere. Blowback and emigration from those countries is not surprising. We have governments that indulge in wealth transfers, in places where there is wealth. If you were an emigrant, would you go to France, or to Mali?
The borders are not the problem. Imperialism and welfare and socialism are the problem. We should not try to prop up socialism by putting a fence around this country – that would take us in a direction away from liberty. We should get rid of socialism and welfare and imperialism. If it takes Muslim immigrants and Mexicans to kill socialism via oversubscription, well then that’s what it takes.
This seems to me to be logical and IF it represents a sizeable portion of the adherents of Mohammad, then I will give them that which they desire.
” These animals are acting from flagrantly anti-human metaphysics: even more evil than socialists of all stripes. At least the socialists make a claim to valuing human betterment, even so horrible as they are at it. These vermin are not like that: *all* their values lie beyond death.
They will not be demoralized by their own deaths, that of their families or anyone else. Death itself, is the value to them.”
” Death is their sacrament, reward, and object of worship. The deaths of others bring them reward. Their own death leads to reward. They ritualistically murder with the most shocking methods to show their worth.
The knights of the Crusades had a honor code, but suicide was forbidden. We are dealing with an alien culture, which has not advanced since the 7th century.”
https://www.facebook.com/billy.beck.18/posts/10205339197220838?pnref=story
So MJR and his Canadian friends are worried about the 25.000+ refugees *per year*?
Currently, there are 10.000 people *per day* crossing the German border. That’s the equivalent of 4.000 per day walking into Canada, or more than 40.000 per day invading the US of A.
Middle Easterners, Afghans, Africans and some from the Balkans. 80% of them young single males. (Of course. They’re not dumb enough to send their wifes and kids with those hordes.)
What could possibly go wrong?
Ten years ago, I decided to move to a small stable rural town. I didn’t choose an isolated homestead (too dangerous), and I sure as hell wouldn’t stay in big city. At that time, there was already civil war brooding in some metropolitan hot spots IMO.
Didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what this was developing into. Looking at Sweden, greater Paris and greater London was sufficient. Or the Netherlands.
What we have now is the same situation on steroids.
The signature gang rapes (like in Sweden) already started. Everyone who voices even the slightest scepticism or discomfort with the situation is dubbed a Nazi by the media and guvment.
A recipe for desaster.
Interesting times indeed.
Well, Claire, it now seems between Donald Trump and Paris France
both have almost eliminated “gun control” for now!
Wonder how much technology England and The U. S. will
be selling to France ? ? ?
Claire: “Islam itself contains a poison at its heart. It’s always been there, this mindless submission to ‘divine’ authority OR ELSE, this ‘conquer by the sword’ mentality.”
I have always defended Islam, but I’ve done so because my experience of it was doing five-times prayer for two years in America with American imams. Islamic religion. American culture. Selective reading of the Koran. Just as most modern Christians selectively read the Bible, ignoring the edicts demanding violence.
But the culture in Islamic countries varies. Some of them consider women to be property, do not separate religion and state, and obey literally the violent edicts in the Koran. THAT I cannot defend. Our enemy: the state. On steroids.
Nicki says it well. It isn’t about how many of the refugees or Muslims in general are terrorists. It’s about how the murderous few are using the rest and abusing the tragic generosity and welcome extended by the countries of Europe. And how blind European governments have acted.
http://thelibertyzone.com/2015/11/14/paris/
(Nicki is more conservative than I and I don’t agree with everything she says. OTOH, she has a job that puts her in a position to understand more than most of us do about international crime, including terrorism.)
“IF it represents a sizeable portion of the adherents of Mohammad, then I will give them that which they desire.”
Thanks for the Billy Beck quote. I didn’t even know he was still around.
I have no idea how large a minority of Muslims participates in or actively supports terrorism. Probably very small. I do believe that a substantial minority help enable it in some way.
I also suspect (per Bill St. Clair’s comment above) that the “problem with Islam” is as much a problem with Arab/Persian culture as with religion. The uber-male dominance, the fixation on revenge, the lack of value for life, the intolerance of differences, the bloody superstitions (dying a martyr and being rewarded with virgins in the afterlife, etc.), the non-separation of chuch and state.
FWIW, there have been concerns about Muslim activity in this country for some time:
http://theprepperproject.com/tactical-training-courses/
http://canadafreepress.com/2006/hagmann052206.htm
There is even a remarkably sophisticated jihadist recruiting film, the “Four Lions” (even the title is astute, for the English coat of arms contains three lions). It’s presented as near slapstick with likable bumbling terrorists and bumbling police, but the idea of suicidal jihad is treated with great reverence. Of course the mainstream media viewed it as a comedy and “black humor.” http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_13?url=search-alias%3Dmovies-tv&field-keywords=the+four+lions&sprefix=the+four+lions%2Caps%2C196
On a tangent, the WaPo had an article about an upcoming election in Burma (aka Myanmar). It had the usual international slant about a mean military dictatorship that now has allowed elections, “ultra-nationalist” Buddhist monks (including a “firebrand” monk dubbed the “Burmese bin Laden”, a moniker which obviously makes no sense), allegations of mistreatment of Muslims, as well as the nearly obligatory Nobel Peace Laureate (a woman, as a bonus) formerly incarcerated by the government who won’t tout Muslims for cabinet posts only because it’s politically disadvantageous. Not terribly surprisingly, the reporter had difficulty finding anyone to talk to her until she encountered a “novice monk.” At the end of the article comes the punch line, a quote from the monk who says, “Muslims are dangerous. They’re not like other religions.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/hardline-buddhist-monks-threaten-burmas-hopes-for-democracy/2015/11/04/8d5e5296-78ee-11e5-a5e2-40d6b2ad18dd_story.html
I certainly don’t know how this will turn out, but I do know the threat level to us has dramatically increased, both from the Radical Islamists and those who say they would protect us from them.
“I do know the threat level to us has dramatically increased, both from the Radical Islamists and those who say they would protect us from them.”
True, that.
I have to disagree with one thing, though. I’ve seen the movie Four Lions. While I’m sure it’s possible that some young, maladjusted idiots might take it as inspiration, it’s sure not intended to be. Blaming this film for inspiring terrorism seems to me to be in the same league as blaming rock music for crimes or debauchery. The “lions” in the film are complete fools, not role models. Of course they take jihad and suicide bombing seriously because that’s what drives their moronic actions.
My take: It certainly is comedy of the very black, British kind that leaves a lot of people shaking their heads in puzzlement. It’s in the same long tradition as comedies about gruesome serial killings. And it’s not a very good movie.
@ MJR
The same thing happened to me in re anti-gun relatives changing their tune after Northridge earth quake. Funny how feeling the heat makes them see the light. After order returned they returned my loaners and resumed their anti-gun ways. Go figure, eh? Some people just cant be helped.
Do not forget that those in power LOVE it when you fear something. We have been hearing about the evil Muslims since 9/11. That they all want to wipe us out, they they are invading our perfect western civilization, and that they are imposing their laws on us. None of that has materialized.
The Paris attacks were pulled off by 8 people. 8!. That’s all it takes to shut down a country. Where is the mass of terrorists that we are constantly warned about? What kind of mayhem could 100 cause? Why haven’t they? Maybe because they don’t actually exist, and those in power want to keep you afraid. Look at what happened after the Boston Marathon Bombing. 2 people held a city in their thrall, people told to lock their door and not go outside, curfew imposed. All for 2 terrorists. If there were truly a massive campaign of invading terrorists we, or at least our so called leaders, would be no match for them.
We need to be very careful that this attack isn’t used to pull us into new wars that we cannot win, where collateral damage is acceptable, and that give those in power further excuses to erode our liberties. Fear provides the perfect excuse. It is better to try to look past the fear, try to recognize who is using it to manipulate you, and refuse to fall for the rhetoric.
I thought, after 9/11, and I still think, that if governments have to deal with terrorists, it’s more appropriate to deal with them as gangsters than to go after entire countries (and the wrong countries, to boot). Pursue terrorists as criminals, as you’d pursue mafiosi or particularly vicious cartelistas.
I agree the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, and whoever else have been pointless and destructive and cynical governments have manipulated their citizens into them. I agree we should avoid perpetuating those horrors.
That said, I still perceive a deep, murderous sickness permeating Islam & believe a vast (and unlikely) cultural change is needed to minimize it.
[Do not forget that those in power LOVE it when you fear something.]
Exactly. The ruling class does not care about 127 dead (nor should we – this is a gnat bite, albeit a flashy one). They WILL use this event to manipulate people, even assuming they did not actually orchestrate it (anyway invading Muslim countries is a good way to generate terror attacks). They WANT people to think that the only solution is a government one. Get ready to hand over more liberty, folks.
“The ruling class does not care about 127 dead (nor should we – this is a gnat bite, albeit a flashy one).”
I agree that the ruling class doesn’t care (or rather, cares only because this presents an opportunity to grab even more power). But I find the rest of that sentence obnoxious.
127 or 150 dead or whatever the ultimate toll will be is NOT a gnat bite. Not to the individuals. Not to their friends, neighbors, classmates, co-workers, lovers, spouses, mothers, fathers, children, and everyone else who cared about them or depended on them. To dismiss their deaths as a “gnat bite” is COLD. Soullessly cold.
Yes, people die every day, yada yada. But that hardly makes mass murder no big deal.
Besides, even if we didn’t know or care about the murdered and wounded individuals, this was an attack on Western civilization and values. It was primitive, superstitious savagery inflicted on the heart of a great city. It was many, many, many horrible things. And even if you don’t personally give a damn, it was NO “gnat bite.”
BTW, I think it’s safe to say that most people reading this blog don’t feel FEAR over this attack (except the obvious fear of losing yet more liberty, thanks to government reaction).
What I feel is anger. Anger that crude savages are free to rampage thought a great city. Anger at the mass slaughter and all the pain it will cause. Anger that such petty little murdering creeps feel so self-righteous. Anger that so many innocents have been disarmed — and even now won’t see that self-protection can’t be delegated. Anger for all manner of things. Not fear.
Paul — Do you really believe we should not care about this?
http://neveryetmelted.com/2015/11/15/ill-take-what-you-wont-see-on-the-msm-for-1000-alex/
(Graphic and heartbreaking photo at the link)
Good commentary from Unz:
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-paris-terror-attacks/#comment-1227949
[127 or 150 dead or whatever the ultimate toll will be is NOT a gnat bite. Not to the individuals. Not to their friends, neighbors, classmates, co-workers, lovers, spouses, mothers, fathers, children, and everyone else who cared about them or depended on them.]
That’s true, but it does not conflict with what I said.
It’s natural for those close to the murdered to feel terrible and sad. But *we* do not know them, or anything about them. How many people die on earth every day, often in awful circumstances, yet we do not know about it?
[Yes, people die every day, yada yada. But that hardly makes mass murder no big deal.]
It’s a big deal, but only because the rest of us can be manipulated with it. Otherwise, why is somebody dying in a bomb attack any more important to us than an African kid starving? It is precisely the value for our manipulation that makes it important. I suggest that we ought to resist manipulation, by understanding the cold hard facts.
It was no gnat bite? What are you going to do differently in your day-to-day life? What is everybody you know going to do differently? If you make no changes, it was a gnat bite.
Every day in the US, about 75,000 people die, people who had survivors who cared for them. In 2001, on 9/11, 78,000 people died rather than the usual 75,000. Hardly any difference, except for the potential to manipulate the rest of us. A great boon to the ruling class.
I refuse to jump on the neocon bandwagon. Some Muslims are bad people, yes. But they are pikers compared to our own ruling class.
“On the contrary, countries are stupidly opening their gates to let the bloody monster in.”
That’s exactly how both Muslim terrorists and western statists want you to feel, as that feeling empowers both groups.
And make no mistake about it, it’s feeling, not thinking.
But you know better, and I’m confident you’ll quickly get control of your emotions and get back to thinking things through.
“I refuse to jump on the neocon bandwagon. Some Muslims are bad people, yes. But they are pikers compared to our own ruling class.”
So nobody’s asked or expected you to jump on the neocon bandwagon. There’s a long stretch of territory between caring about the human and cultural loss and being manipulated into xenophobia and war.
Does the evil of our own government somehow mean we can’t care about a tragedy, just because we know the tragedy will be used for manipulation? If so, I’d say we’ve just been manipulated in a different direction — toward coldness and inhumanity. I don’t find that better than caring — about either the personal tragedy or the cultural one that’s in the making.
“But you know better, and I’m confident you’ll quickly get control of your emotions and get back to thinking things through.”
A person isn’t allowed to both think and feel?
Tell me honestly, Claire. Do you feel worse about someone in that photo you linked to, than you do about a kid starved to death or hacked to death with a machete in Africa? If so, why?
As to western civilization and values, I wrote a little piece about that, a while back:
http://ncc-1776.org/tle2014/tle783-20140810-03.html
“Tell me honestly, Claire. Do you feel worse about someone in that photo you linked to, than you do about a kid starved to death or hacked to death with a machete in Africa? If so, why?”
Yes, I do. It may not be noble or politically correct, but I feel worse about people attacked in the midst of the heart of Western civilization partly because I identify with them more, and partly because I recognize that the attack is against a way of life that, for all its faults, represents the fruits of the Enlightenment, a rise above superstition and savagery.
That’s not to say that I condone a machete attack in Africa or don’t feel sympathy for a starving child there. But Africa seems a place where life and human achievement are little valued. Europe, for all its wars, genocides, religious manias, and other turmoils, is the place that gave rise to the intellectual and moral greatness that carried us out of the “demon-haunted world.” Paris is historically a place of learning and great art. So yes, to me, striking at hundreds of innocent people in Paris is not only more personal and emotional, but I’m also more angry and indignant because I understand that it’s also a strike against something more than mere “short, brutish, etc.” existence.
Claire,
OF COURSE you are “allowed to feel.”
It’s just that it’s always a mistake to conflate feeling with thinking. As Ayn Rand put it, “emotion is not a tool of cognition.”
Well, I don’t feel any difference. In fact if anything, that poor kid in Africa whose corpse never made it into a news service photo had a rotten life compared to the party-goers in Paris, so if anything he should elicit even more sympathy, rage and sadness. It’s not his fault that Africa is a rotten place to live.
The other problem with your position is the ensuing actions. Who is going to feel the brunt of it? The ruling classes who instigated the mad immigration rush, and tapped their taxpayers to pay for it? No. The ruling class bastards who disarmed the people? No. The ISIL leadership? No. It will be some poor schmuck in Syria getting his wife or kids bombed into hamburger; that’s who will pay. Which by the way is exactly why ISIL took this action – they didn’t like French bombing in Syria.
Not to mention that ISIL is a creation of the American ruling class. Hell, we don’t even know if this is a false flag operation. It sure has the earmarks of one.
As to western civilization, for one thing it is a lot more rugged than you give it credit for; and for another, it is being attacked MUCH more effectively by our own ruling class than by these Muslim pawns.
It is not that there is no problem; it’s that the anger is pointed in the wrong direction.
“It is not that there is no problem; it’s that the anger is pointed in the wrong direction.”
If you’ve somehow got the impression that I’m not angry or disgusted with the U.S. government or other western government, I haven’t been doing a very good job. I don’t doubt at all that those governments fostered the creation of terrorist organizations.
Both the governments and the terrorist organizations are despicable. The contempt I feel for one does not decrease the contempt I feel for the other.
“It’s just that it’s always a mistake to conflate feeling with thinking. As Ayn Rand put it, ’emotion is not a tool of cognition.'”
And Rand was a highly emotional person who had to pretend that all her emotional reactions were “rational” in order to live with herself.
I certainly hope I’m not mistaking feelings for rational thought or vice versa. But I see no reason the two can’t exist side-by-side and even inform each other quite usefully. I do not believe that policy should be based on emotion (real or manipulated). Nor do I believe that the U.S. or the French should start (or escallate) another pointless war over this. Nor that all Muslims are evil.
But it’s hardly irrational or emotional to observe that porous borders don’t work well with welfare states. Or that Islamists are killing innocent people and want to see Western civilization reduced to their own savage level (note that I haven’t denied that Western governments are also killers). It’s definitely not emotional to notice that the governments of Europe and to a lesser extend the U.S. are inviting terrorists into their midst and supporting them with welfare-state dollars, and Europe that is putting its own disarmed citizens at risk.
“The other problem with your position is the ensuing actions. Who is going to feel the brunt of it?”
What governments or other portions of the ruling class do is not a “problem with my position.” My beliefs have never had the slightest influence on anyone in power. My beliefs have never prompted any action from the Pentagon, the CIA, Congress, or the president, let alone foreign heads of state or corporate CEOs in the military-intelligence-inductrial complex.
I oppose their policies virtually across the board. My positions are not theirs and are irrelevant to them. And if I could influence them, it would not be in the neocon direction you apparently assume.
As I said earlier, there’s a vast territory between seeing a problem with terrorists and rabid religionists and agreeing with some equally savage governmental “solution.”
Regarding the movie “Four Lions” (about 100 comments ago), I don’t know that I’m “blaming” the movie in the sense that Hillary blamed the Benghazi attack on a pitiful movie trailer that Interestingly, even YouTube has censored now. https://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3D8tIk5BDHazI&spfreload=10
But I do see, IMHO, an extremely sophisticated recruiting video. The idea of suicidal jihad was treated with reverence; I remember one scene where the main protagonist was talking with his wife, who was looking at him with pure adoration for what he was doing. I don’t recall that the jihadists killed a single innocent person. The police, however, did. A sharpshooter killed an innocent parade participant, and a line of police came into a shop and mistakenly killed the owner in a barrage of gunfire. The jihadist across the table from the owner, characterized by not being very smart, said to the police, “I really don’t know what I’m doing,” after which the bomb went off killing everyone. So by the script he wasn’t a murderer. And the main protagonist said goodbye to a co-worker he happened to see on the street and went into an empty store and blew himself up. At the end of the movie, the Imam, who had tried to talk the jihadists out of their plan (how often does that happen?) and was totally innocent, was in the custody of the British agents who told him that if he didn’t talk, they would turn him over to the Egyptians. A door with an appropriate name was in the scent for threatening effect.
The likable jihadists killed no innocent people, the idea of suicidal jihad was treated with great reverence, the police did kill innocents, and at the end an innocent Imam was in custody and threatened with torture. If I were at all considering jihad, the lessons I would get from this movie are that jihad is honorable and that if done competently it would be extremely effective given the incompetence of the police.
A couple of unrelated sequellae to the Paris incident.
Fearless Leader has a plan. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/15/obama-still-plans-to-accept-10000-syrian-refugees-/
And – oh, well. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/14/mizzou-protesters-black-lives-matter-complain-pari/
In response to the exchanges above.
There is such a thing as common decency and humaneness, and they are closely wrapped up in the concept of “civilization.” To be concerned about what’s going on in the world and about the people in it, even (and especially) with those we don’t know, is to acknowledge the common bond that is humanity. Neither government nor ISIS tells us how to react to a mass killing; we feel the pain because a rational perspective of civility tells us that what we are seeing is not the proper way to treat each other, that there must be another way to cope with disagreements.
Most of us here know that governments have caused the bulk of the problems we currently have. While it shouldn’t be essential that every country pull itself up into the modern world – we don’t have the right to tell them how to live, after all – still we do have the choice to honor their conditions or not and respond to their situation, depending on their intent and their attempt to help themselves.
The problem with libertarianism is, in the process of fighting statism, it has focused on the negativity of politics which brought us here, and often leads many libertarians to reject or refuse to admit to the necessity for sensitivity that should have accompanied our transition from instinct to brain power. As a result, we (myself included) often forget how to relate to the other side of the argument. (Note, I didn’t say agree or sympathize with the other side.) Thus we often come off as either callous or emotional, when we meant to be “objective.”
And, in spite of Rand, should we ever be truly “objective” in some situations? Objectivity must allow some space for humaneness, or we lose the ability to claim ourselves “human”, with the power of choice to be sensitive to the pain and needs of others.
(I realize this is all philosophical, a perspective that many don’t want to discuss these days, but philosophy is the root cause of many disagreements between libertarians – which Rand attempted to run interference for by imposing her own philosophy on us all. While she was no doubt correct in her interpretation of history, she did make some mistakes in judgement regarding human psychology. And all of us tend to forget that we, as humans, have not yet evolved to perfection.)
And, to make the political more personal:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/15/456106016/the-paris-attacks-portraits-of-some-of-the-victims
Thank you, Pat. Beautifully stated.
[But it’s hardly irrational or emotional to observe that porous borders don’t work well with welfare states.]
Certainly. The real question is, does this fact increase liberty or reduce liberty? What strategies for dealing with this fact increase, and what strategies decrease liberty?
The welfare state by itself is perfectly capable of trashing liberty and degrading people, even without the open borders problem. That is the long term trend. Open borders merely accelerates what is going to eventually happen anyway.
At the bottom, there are only two ways to deal with this factor. Either preserve and extend the welfare state by stopping immigration (and necessarily, emigration); or preserve open borders by killing the welfare state. Since I prefer liberty, the second sounds better to me.
A complicating factor is that the welfare state is doomed anyway, when the economy crashes. But then we won’t really need or want border protection either; Muslims won’t be shipping themselves over here. Mexicans? Not sure why we need protection against them. They are Catholics, not Muslims. It’s like people worrying about papist Irish immigrants in the 19th century.
BTW, maybe we shouldn’t get TOO misty-eyed about western culture. Sure, it produced good stuff like science, engineering, legal equality for women, and great classical music and art. But it also produced Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, government schooling aka indoctrination, central banking, industrial-level genocide, and world wars.
That was a nice artful dodge, Paul, from my questions about why we should not feel any sympathy for the Paris dead or rage against their murderers and how sympathy (apparently) automatically puts one in danger of becoming a neocon.
And if you’ll look above, you’ll notice that I already acknowledged many of the problems with Western civilization — though yes, you’re correct in the ones you’ve added.
More than one person here has made the claim that if we simply eliminated the welfare state the problem of Muslim incursions into the West would fix itself. That is utter nonsense. Muslim “immigration” (“invasion” would be a better term) into Europe and the West may be exacerbated, in certain individual cases, by the ready availability of social welfare benefits. But even if welfare were eliminated entirely Islam would remain a persistent existential threat to the West. This is a war which has been going on, off and on, for 1300 years already. During most of that time there was no “welfare” as we know it, but still they kept coming. Think not? Google the “Siege of Vienna”.
As Claire said, Islam has “poison at its heart”. It always has. I would go farther and say that it is a cancer on humanity. There is not a single Muslim-dominated country on the planet with any respect for human freedom, any semblance of a democratic process, or a functioning economy. Muslims are toxic in concentration; they only flourish where they constitute a tiny minority of an otherwise tolerant population. No nation which values its culture, traditions or freedoms should tolerate them in any quantity.
I will take issue with one of Claire’s comments: “Much of Christianity’s history was as bloody as anything the Islamists have going today.” That is untrue. Yes, Christians have had their Inquisitions, and their persecutions of heretics and unbelievers (including Jews). But even at their worst they never approached the level of bloodthirstiness displayed throughout history by Muslims. And don’t cite the Crusades as evidence to the contrary: those were always and only a response to Islamic incursions into Christian areas. The Crusaders were merely defending their own against uncivilized savages. In many respects it is exactly the same as our fight in the Middle East today. As I said, this war has been going on for 1300 years; only the technology has changed.
Islam is irretrievably poisoned because it revolves around the teachings of a psychopathic, pedophile, dark ages warlord. An examination of his life and (alleged) writings would lead any objective observer to characterize him as clinically psychotic. Nothing good could ever possibly come from such a source. By contrast, you can believe or not that Jesus was the son of God (personally, I don’t), but at least by all accounts he was a decent human being. If you’re going to build a religion under which humans can flourish, that’s not a bad place to start.
“But even at their worst they never approached the level of bloodthirstiness displayed throughout history by Muslims. And don’t cite the Crusades as evidence to the contrary: those were always and only a response to Islamic incursions into Christian areas.”
Does the phrase “Thirty Years’ War” ring any bells?
Uh, Laird, how many murdered Iraqis have there been in the last 20 years? Afghans?
We don’t have to go back to the middle ages. And before you say, “Christianity didn’t do that, western governments did,” that sounds like the same excuse by apologists of Islam, “Islam didn’t do that (terrorist attack), only individual Muslims did”. So which is it?
In the last decades, there have been vastly more innocent Muslims killed by Christians, than the reverse. Not to mention real Christian invasions happening, rather than just a bunch of guys with Syrian passports.
All religions have poison in their heart, as far as I’m concerned.
Anyway I hate these collectivist discussions. They often are a prelude to genocide. Every Muslim is not like every other Muslim. Likewise for Christians.
Sorry for the dodge Claire. I went back and found the sentence that is getting stuck in your craw: “The ruling class does not care about 127 dead (nor should we – this is a gnat bite, albeit a flashy one).” I may have overstated that.
Go ahead and care, as much as one naturally can about nameless people we don’t know getting killed. We can say the ruling class doesn’t care at all – obviously since they think nothing of starting wars. We can care some, but we don’t know these people so (here’s the point I didn’t get across) no more than we’d care about any other group of people getting killed, say by American artillery in Afghanistan. I don’t mean to say we shouldn’t care at all as if we were rulers, but only the way we’d normally do for distant unknown folk.
I might as well bring out the obvious point. When people talk about Viet Nam, it is usually mentioned that about 50,000 Americans were killed. My reaction is always, “Wait a minute, what about the 2 MILLION Vietnamese killed?” Not to mention the fact we were occupying their country? I just don’t naturally say “These lives are worth more than those” – when talking outside of my personal circle of course. I don’t understand the tendency to dehumanize others, or consider them as somehow less. I know why the ruling class does it, but I don’t understand why anybody else does.
You dodged one yourself Claire, saying you oppose the ruling class across the board. This sentence: “But there is no doubt that these savages, who come from or are inspired by lands where either tyranny or chaos — or both — reign, want to tear down the West down to their barbaric level.” Neocons would read that and say, “Now Claire’s getting it!” That’s the kind of language that precipitates wars, if enough people take it up. It unfortunately obscures the fact that, for example, France bombed Syria, killing innocents there.
https://lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/long-history-french-military-intervention-middle-east-africa/
Ron Paul puts the Muslim death toll due to our intervention in the Middle East at 3 MILLION.
“We don’t have to go back to the middle ages. And before you say, “Christianity didn’t do that, western governments did,” that sounds like the same excuse by apologists of Islam, “Islam didn’t do that (terrorist attack), only individual Muslims did”. So which is it?
“In the last decades, there have been vastly more innocent Muslims killed by Christians, than the reverse.”
Not analogous, Paul. Not at all.
I’m no fan of any religion. But the Muslims doing this slaughter are explicitly doing it in the name of Allah and justifying it with Islamic dogma. The Western governments are not committing their deeds in the name of Christianity or with the excuse of Christian dogma.
I grant that that distinction may not matter to the Muslims being whacked by drone strikes. But you and I surely know that the U.S. government (as well as the governments of Europe) are not only not Christian but are in many ways anti-Christian.
“You dodged one yourself Claire, saying you oppose the ruling class across the board. This sentence: “But there is no doubt that these savages, who come from or are inspired by lands where either tyranny or chaos — or both — reign, want to tear down the West down to their barbaric level.” Neocons would read that and say, “Now Claire’s getting it!” That’s the kind of language that precipitates wars, if enough people take it up.”
I am not responsible for what other people do, including ways in which neocons might interpret my words.
It’s completely true that Islamists want to drag down the West. That’s nothing but a factual observation. ISIS uses that language in its own communications.
I haven’t tried to avoid answering anything you’ve said. I just reject your conclusion that my feelings of sympathy for the victims and rage toward the murderers somehow makes me responsible for what neocons do. Even in the worst of my rage, I was clear to say that I regard terrorists as criminals — gangsters — who should be treated as such, not as semi-state actors upon whom war can be effectively made.
“Ron Paul puts the Muslim death toll due to our intervention in the Middle East at 3 MILLION.”
And it is a shame and a horror and wrong in every way. And it’s totally understandable that it would provoke blowback.
And that said, nothing justifies killing innocent people, even if other innocents have been killed. If your own family was killed, would you say, “Well, that entitles me to go down the street and kill some other random person’s family?” Or “Well, that entitles me to go over and kill the murderer’s third cousin once removed?” That’s primitive tribalist thinking and there’s no justification for it.
You mentioned the U.S. government killing two million Vietnamese — another horror, another shame. But did Vietnamese people later come to the U.S. (or France, against whom they also had legitimate grievances) and kill random people? No.
Random slaughter is the province of a culture steeped in and justifying itself through Islam. And let’s not forget that the a major class of victims of these savages has been — OTHER MUSLIMS. People who conducted no drone strikes, no bombings, no invasions. Why strike at them if terrorism is strictly blowback/payback for the crimes of the West?
Nothing justifies it. But it’s the nature of war that innocent people will be killed. The US government and the French government brought war to the region. Should the terrorists have directed their attack at the individuals who brought war? Perhaps. Is that even possible? Hard to say. The attackers do not have state-level resources behind them; they are just a few guys cooking stuff up in a kitchen, trying to stay one step ahead of the security apparatus. Apparently they did make some effort to get Hollande.
There is also the problem of responsibility. You and I and most here completely oppose “our” government, but “our” government could not exist without a substantial amount of support, from otherwise innocent people, as Boetie pointed out. I don’t know how to parse that all out, but as George Carlin put it, “We love war.” There are not crowds of people in the streets any more, protesting it. People still send their sons and now daughters into the military. Play at empire, expect to take some hits.
Statism, religion, and other forms of collectivism bring out the worst in people.
There are so many Muslims in Paris that for some time now the police simply haven’t gone in certain neighborhoods. Muslims have also blocked traffic by deciding they were going to pray en masse in a certain spot, so they went and filled up a couple of blocks or so.
iSIS claims to have current capability here. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/isis-appears-threaten-pamela-geller-claims-militants-article-1.2211913 Guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
Some practical pessimism on the opposition to ISIS http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/12000928/The-worlds-determination-to-defeat-Isil-is-a-myth.html
All you need is love? http://www.gossipcop.com/madonna-paris-attacks-terrorists-dignity-respect-isis-love-unconditionally-video/
Come to think of it, haven’t heard much from Charlie Hebdo lately.
Fearless leader is too busy to talk about it. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/16/obama-says-hes-too-busy-debate-gop-over-terrorism/
But he really does know what’s important. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/17/obama-says-gun-control-be-top-issue-final-year/ So do we.
“..itself contains a poison at its heart. It’s always been there, this mindless submission to “divine” authority OR ELSE, this “conquer by the sword” mentality.”
Pardon. Are you talking about 85% of Americans who submit blindly, heckle rcklessly, and squawk in concert to drop the full weight of the public media opinion upon ‘anyone’ using the US government, military, local police, fbi, epa, school board, and jails? Anyone who does not fit the PC chant of your personal tribe, today?
ILTim — Point taken. But there’s a vast difference between willing conformity and “we’ll cut your head off or slaughter you en masse if you disagree with us.”
Paul, I’m not going to argue here in support of US involvement in the Middle East. We shouldn’t be there. But neither will I accept your premise that we are the cause of all the turmoil there, or that terrorist attacks on the West can be attributed to your theoretical “blowback”. That viewpoint is grossly naïve.
The Middle East has been a boiling cauldron of war and slaughter for millennia, and since its rise in the 8th century Islam has been the root of most of it. Yes, Muslims have been slaughtering each other: Sunnis and Shi’ites hate each other, view the other as apostates, and seem to waste no opportunity to kill each other. Even within those major groups there are warring factions. But they all agree on one thing: the extermination of infidels. The result has been more or less constant war with the West for the last thousand years. At its peak the Ottoman Empire nearly conquered all of Europe before being repulsed at Vienna. They are still trying.
Perhaps western bombing in the ME does help with ISIS recruitment; it might indeed be the impetus for some individual recruits. But it is not the driving force behind the overall strategy; it is no more a necessary condition for jihad against the West than is the existence of welfare benefits the driving force behind all the migrants now quietly invading Europe. Were we to withdraw completely from the ME and leave them all to their own devices (which I would support) it still wouldn’t change anything; the desire to conquer and convert all non-Muslims would remain, and the jihadi tactics would continue because they are in integral part of the teachings of Mohammad.
The Western struggle against Islam is an existential one. I agree that the fight today should be waged by those closest to it (primarily European nations). But we should be supporting them, because if we don’t sooner or later Islam will come for us, too. And that is why a principled case can be made for US involvement now, in the nature of a preemptive action before the fight actually reaches our shores. Personally, I don’t think the time is ripe for that, and so don’t agree with the argument, but I recognize its validity.
Unfortunately, for the last 30 years or so the US position has not been to recognize and acknowledge that this is actually a fight against Islam, but rather to pretend that all our actions in the ME have been merely a series of unrelated conflicts. For that reason I say, stand back and let them kill off each other. We shouldn’t have involved ourselves in the Iran-Iraq war; both sides were evil. (In fact, as an exercise in realpolitik we should have been clandestinely arming both parties to that conflict!) But sooner or later they will be coming for us. It’s a fight we cannot avoid. So if we were to recognize this struggle for what it truly is I would not have a problem with taking it on now. The Non-Aggression Principle does not preclude taking the first punch when you legitimately believe that your opponent is intent on attacking you. But we should not get involved until that realization dawns and is expressly acknowledged by those charged with prosecuting the war. Until we clearly see who our enemy is, and are prepared to fight to win, we should stay out.
“The Middle East has been a boiling cauldron of war and slaughter for millennia,….
“…. But we should not get involved until that realization dawns and is expressly acknowledged by those charged with prosecuting the war. Until we clearly see who our enemy is, and are prepared to fight to win, we should stay out.” [INCLUSIIVE]
Well said, Laird. Nothing to add.
Speaking as a European.
Our real enemies are those who are funding this stuff – terrorism dies fast without money. Who funded the IRA? Might it just have been the “Irish Americans” from Boston? What goes around comes around.
Who is giving the money to the scum? Might it just be our “allies” in the ME?
There are several states in the oil producing bit that need to stop existing. Just not the ones we have been dropping bombs on…
“After Paris: where’s our fire?”
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/after-paris-wheres-our-fire/17656#.VlBDb5e37tS
Scary, Pat.
Makes me think of Brigitte Bardot http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2015/11/any-apologies-to-brigitte-bardot.html
Or Le Pen: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11943110/Marine-Le-Pen-stands-trial-for-Muslim-street-prayer-outburst.html
Or a commentator Claire believes often is wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7xU0aD2BB8