Monday, January 12, 2015

Taking the temperature of the Counter-Jihad, part 7

So far, each installment of this series has alluded to the immediately preceding part in order to link up with an unfolding, overarching analysis of the problem.  This time, then, instead of referencing part 6, I reach back to an observation I made in part 4:

Before the Counter-Jihad can forge its platform, then, it has to get straight what the problem of Islam is, exactly, and what it advises its West to do about it.  And before that can happen, as I have said in the previous installments of this topic, its members need to have a Conversation about this.

We can't lose sight of this crucial piece of the puzzle as we forge ahead pursuing a "Conversation".  We have to agree on what is, exactly, the nature of the problem we are grappling with.  If we have widely divergent definitions of the problem, any subsequent discussions we have will be, as the saying goes, "talking past each other" (or, to pull out another clichĂ©, we "won't be on the same page").

So what is the problem, exactly?  Most of the Counter-Jihad folks would hasten to agree it's not a "Tiny Minority of Extremists" (just as they would hasten to agree that the term "Moderate Muslim" is worthy only of bitterly caustic derision).  But what are they offering in its place?  Well, unfortunately, the answer to this question seems to depend on the Counter-Jihad person one is talking to at the moment.  Many in the Counter-Jihad may seem to be talking in robustly no-nonsense terms about the problem; but when one examines their locutions more closely, one sees to one's dismay that they are effectively putting forth something roughly the same as the "Tiny Minority of Extremists" -- with merely a larger Minority in mind.  I.e., the only difference between them and a Daniel Pipes (or, worse yet, a George Bush) is the numbers:  a slightly (or somewhat) larger Minority of Extremists is the problem.  Not "Tiny", perhaps, but still a Minority.

This, along with a fastidious disinclination to condemn Muslims in any way that does not anxiously and simultaneously protect vast swaths of Muslims from our condemnation, characterizes what I have called the "Counter-Jihad Softy" (what I have analyzed as the "asymptotic" perspective, contrasted with the "holistic" point of view that sees Islam and all Muslims as the problem). 

So the question at this juncture of my multi-part meditation here is: Can I conceive of a way to come to some kind of compromise with the Counter-Jihad Softy, given that I define the problem in a significantly (if not radically) different way?

I'm still chewing on it...


Egghead said...

Your compromise must involve a recognition of sin and the need to protect the West from sin.

Any people that believes that an adult man should 'marry' and have sexual relations with an infant (Iranian Muslims) or a six year old (Muslim founder Mohammed and other Muslim followers) is a sinful people that should be excluded from the 'civilized' West.

Liberty said...

Hello Hesp,

I like Bill Warner's way of defining the problem.

All people are Muslim or Dhimmi to the extent they believe and act out the essentials of Islam.

Egghead said...

One commentator said that the Muslims have already won because people refer to everything around Muslims being the most important people (Muslim versus non-Muslim).

This needs to change. To save Western civilization, we again need to refer to people as being Christian or non-Christian. If we re-adopt that language and ideal, we will be able to save Western civilization which was built by white Christians for white Christians.

I know that Jews, atheists, and sodomites hate this ideal, and Mormons already try to pretend they are Christians even though Mormons do NOT follow Christian theology or ideals. However, Christianity is what built - and what will save - white Western civilization.

Egghead said...

Hi Hesp,

Propaganda 101. Still think that there is NO conspiracy as to who scripts the news?

Does Jesus offend Muslims - or the other non-Christians who use Muslims as a scapegoat for their goals to eradicate Christianity?

Liberty said...

Hi Hesp,

I think a big problem the counter-jihad has, is people who act and speak like egghead.

Unfortunately MSM is already biased against us, so when potentially new counter-jihadists visit a site like this to try to ascertain whether MSM is telling truth or lies about us, they meet someone like egghead and all their prior prejudices are confirmed.

Liberty said...

Hi Hesperado,

Put another way:

Do we really need people whose main agenda seems to be white christian rule?

The sub agenda of demonising everyone else, is only against islam because it seems like the biggest threat, not because of anything in particular that islam says or does.

Hesperado said...

Well Liberty, I disagree significantly with Egghead on a couple of these things; but if anyone visits a blog and sees an objectionable comment and concludes irrationally that this reflects on the Counter-Jihad in general, I can't do anything about that. As I've basically said a few times (and may more explicitly formulate in this present series I'm unfolding), the Counter-Jihad is kind of compromised by two opposing tendencies -- on one side, Softies who lean in the direction of PC MC; and on the other, people too far to the "right" who seem to perceive a kind of conspiracy theory where the problem isn't "really" Islam anymore, but something else (I've discussed this in my "Real Problemers" essay).

Egghead said...

Hi Liberty,

You are an intellectual and moral coward if you CARE about anything other than truth.

For example, I would be delighted to believe that brown Christians could carry the banner of Christ without the active financial support and moral example of white Christians, but I am unconvinced by the unfolding reality that I see around me.

And, history shows that Western civilization has flourished under white Christian rule. So, if you can point to a better example of a successful race and religion, please feel free.

Put another way: Every 'secular' Western country now contains NO GO zones run by non-whites and non-Christians (that are largely financed by white Christians!). If those NO GO zones are so great, feel free to move to one to take full advantage of the 'secular' (Ha!) non-white non-Christian home rule that you find there.

Liberty said...

Approximate figures.

Total christians in world 2400M

US white christians 162M

Europe white christians 444M

Australia w. christians 20M

Canada white christians 30M

Unless I have ignored vast quantities of white christians, which is very possible considering my geographical skills, there is a large majority of brown christians.

Egghead said...

Hi Liberty,

Without you citing your source, there is no way for me to see why your source's numbers differ from my source's numbers.

My source is the 12-19-11 Pew Forum Report entitled, "Global Christianity – A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Christian Population."

It is worth a read, but here is a sample:

"A comprehensive demographic study of more than 200 countries finds that there are 2.18 billion Christians of all ages around the world, representing nearly a third of the estimated 2010 global population of 6.9 billion. Christians are also geographically widespread – so far-flung, in fact, that no single continent or region can indisputably claim to be the center of global Christianity.

"A century ago, this was not the case. In 1910, about two-thirds of the world’s Christians lived in Europe, where the bulk of Christians had been for a millennium, according to historical estimates by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity.2 Today, only about a quarter of all Christians live in Europe (26%). A plurality – more than a third – now are in the Americas (37%). About one in every four Christians lives in sub-Saharan Africa (24%), and about one-in-eight is found in Asia and the Pacific (13%).

Egghead said...

Here's a very important nugget from the current Wikipedia article entitled "Christianity by country": "People who mix Christianity with tribal religions are defined in this article as Christians."

I have heard that there are real problems with African Christians participating in genocides and polygamy. So I fairly ask, do Africans practice Christianity in a manner that is recognizable or even compatible with Western Christianity or Christians?

"No event in recent history has challenged Christian reflection on Africa more than the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Within a period of less than one hundred days, more than 800,000 Rwandans were killed by fellow Rwandans, as the rest of the world stood by and watched. The majority of the killings were carried out by ordinary Rwandans against their neighbors using machetes, sticks, and clubs with nails, making the Rwandan genocide one of the most inexplicable tragedies of our time. What makes the Rwandan genocide a particularly chilling and challenging event for Christian reflection, however, is that Rwanda has been, and perhaps remains, one of the most Christianized nations in Africa. It is estimated that as many as 90 percent of Rwandans in 1994 were Christians—62.6% Catholic, 18.8% Protestant, and 8.4% Seventh Day Adventist. Given that the majority of Rwandans were Christians, why did that not make any significant difference when it came to the events of 1994 ? Where was the church? Did God just turn his back on Rwanda?

"The more one probes these and similar questions, the more one faces the disturbing realization that in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the church was not simply silent, but was intimately associated with the genocide. Not only did the majority of killings take place within or around churches, they involved Christians killing other Christians. In fact, as Longman points out, the fact that the majority of Rwandans were Catholics meant that often the victims and their killers were quite familiar with each other and had even participated regularly in the same Eucharist celebrations, within the same church. He notes,

'Church personnel and institutions were actively involved in the program of resistance to popular pressures for political reform that culminated in the 1994 genocide, and numerous priests, pastors, nuns, brothers, catechists, and Catholic and Protestant lay leaders supported, participated in, or helped to organize the killings . . . In most communities members of a church parish killed their fellow parishioners and even, in a number of cases, their own pastor or priests.'

"When he visited Rwanda on behalf of the Pope shortly following the genocide, he asked the assembled church leaders, "'Are you saying that the blood of tribalism is deeper than the waters of baptism?' One leader present answered, 'Yes it is.'"

Egghead said...

Here's an article that argues that African Christians currently practice polygamy - and should be able to continue to practice polygamy (except for any new polygamous marriages for new Christians).

Additionally, it appears that many African Christians who are polygamists believe that polygamy should be fine to practice in any case.

Note from Egghead: Polygamy ALWAYS leads to child marriage.

But, what about African American Christians? Let's consider the testimony of Obama's longtime Christian pastor Rev. Wright.

"Mr. Wright says Mr. Obama possessed an “Islamic background” and despite his conversion to Christianity has never abandoned his Muslim roots. In short, Mr. Wright appears to be confirming what I have argued for years: Mr. Obama is a cultural Muslim whose Christianity is deeply tied to black liberation theology - the belief that America and the West have an evil, imperialist civilization bent on oppressing the Third World."

Liberty said...

I feel a bit sullied now, because I succumbed to the baiting of a white supremacist.

Islamic supremacism is one of the main things the counter-jihad stands against.

Therefore it is supremely hypocritical to mollycoddle white, christian, or any other kind of supremacist views.

Like it or not, image is very important. If supremacists are not robustly condemned by counter-jihadists, decent people will be put off joining.

Liberty said...

I did actually skim through some of the material that Egghead has been spewing.

Denninger's view that the more evangelically religious one is, the harder it is to conceive of a separation between public and private, seems relevant here.

Egghead said...

Ah Liberty,

Do you have any facts or sources at your disposal - or just your own unsupported opinions - and ad hominem attacks against me?

Why do you have a problem with me describing that too many black Christians are practicing the New World Order one world religion of Chrislam (with attendant genocide and polygamy and tribalism and a healthy infusion of Islam for good measure) - instead of black Christians actually practicing Christianity?

Do you realize that people are inflating the number of brown Christians in the world in order to 1) extract money from white people for the support of brown Christians, and 2) lull white Christians into a false sense of security that brown Christians will act like white Christians when brown Christians have power over white Christians. Obama is an instructive example to those who care to see.

Contradictions are rife in life.

Let's look at 'secularist' Karl Denninger as an example here.

Self-professed Libertarian Denninger is theoretically about total freedom for everyone; but, in reality, in the domain in which he owns power, Denninger acts as an autocrat who 1) is exceedingly quick to a) threaten to ban, and b) ban anyone who even mildly disagrees with him, and 2) writes the occasional opinion article (outside of his financial expertise) - giving the appearance of omitting to fully research a referenced historical topic - coming to an apparently biased conclusion based on a lack of research - and then failing to publicly correct his mistakes - and, again I emphasize, banning some or all who might attempt to contradict him. Thus, 'freedom loving' Denninger quite effectively self-selects the comments on his website for people who agree with him and stroke his most considerable ego. Ah, the joys of claiming to promote freedom in the world at large - without actually allowing freedom in one's own sphere....

Granted, Denninger's website is privately owned, and he can allow anyone he wants to comment. But, the point is that Denninger does NOT allow or encourage freedom in his comments. Add to that, Denninger claims a form of copyright on comments - which also might limit the freedom of commenters to use their own intellectual material - most especially if Denninger SELLS his website to another entity. Instagram tried to claim ownership of posted photos - and was roundly condemned by users. Anyway, Denninger's claim of copyright of others' comments is hardly an illustration of his support of total freedom in the world.

Egghead said...

Regarding the 'image' of the counter-jihad movement: At one point, GoV was seriously promoting a slogan akin to, "They can't murder us all." As I wrote vehemently then - and now - NO ONE is going to join a movement that DARES the other side to torture and murder as many of us as possible because, after all, a few of us will be left (I guess to be sex slaves to the murderers - that part was left off of the marketing slogan)!

So, you contend that NO ONE is going to join a movement that values white Christian rule, whereas I ask you to explain WHY you think that white Christians will send our precious children to be horribly tortured and DIE to protect 'colorful' secularists who would ban ALL expressions of the value - and values - of white Christians in the West? Just how self-defeating do you think white Christians are?

Egghead said...

Regarding "Denninger's view that the more evangelically religious one is, the harder it is to conceive of a separation between public and private, seems relevant here":

Secularists ARE evangelists for the secular religion. It has already been said that, the more secularly religious one is, the harder it is to conceive of true religious believers - whether Muslim or Christian.

I will add here that, the more secularly religious one is, the harder it is to conceive of a separation between public and private - because secularists believe that EVERYTHING is to be decided in and rule by the PUBLIC sphere - according to secularist values.

More later.

Hesperado said...

Hi Egghead,

I've been very behind in time and I may not have time to access all the different links you've posted. There is a general principle perhaps somewhat independent of statistical data, regarding the issue of the non-white non-Western Christians -- a two-fold principle:

1) I agree it is arguable that non-white non-Western Christians, in varying degrees (varying by region & culture) have shown systemic signs of being unable to assimilate Christian civilization to an extent sufficient to overcome some regressive features of their cultures; however, while I concede that this may have systemic impacts on a macro level, I wouldn't agree that this dooms all non-white non-Western Christians to such a fate, and it would be in the interest of Westerners to continue to help and interact with the non-white non-Western Christians who do show signs of transcending their regressive tribalisms.

2) My #1 principle thus holds out an expectation of being able to have some kind of relationship with non-white non-Western Christians -- and for a certain list of reasons which show the contrast between non-white non-Western Christians and all Muslims (including white Western Muslims), we should treat the latter differently, through, among other things, radical segregation of the two worlds (Non-Muslim and Muslim), achieved in great part through total deportation and quarantine of the Dar-al-Islam.

Egghead said...

Correction: "...secularists believe that EVERYTHING is to be decided in and ruled by the PUBLIC sphere - according to secularist values."

You see, because the Christian religious majority does NOT believe in the secular religion, the secular religion regularly CHEATS the majority in order to achieve and enforce secular dominance. Ironically, secularists fail to see or care that their cheating completely undercuts their contention that each secularist somehow magically obtains and exhibits 'superior' normative 'values' without the benefit of Christian religion (which, of course, secularism IS its own religion with values - one of which appears to be a ready willingness to CHEAT - a combination of lying and stealing - and a violation of two of the Ten Commandments which actually were once and should be again normative Western values).

For example, when a secularist sues a Christian majority town to remove a modest cross memorial for veterans and then takes $500,000 in 'compensation' from that town's insurance, that secularist and anyone who helps or supports that secularist is CHEATING the Christian majority of both freedom of expression and hard earned money (both to pay lawyers and insurance premiums for frivolous legal cases).

It is the secularists who insist on handling every matter in a PUBLIC arena - misusing law and media - so that secularists can FORCE religious people to bend to - and also pay for - the will of secularists. Thus, if religious Christians privately decline to hire - or work for - or use the bathroom - or share a locker room or dorm room - with LGBT people, the 'freedom-loving' secularists run crying to the nanny state to publically FORCE religious people to go against the Christian religion and follow the secular religion - and to publically PUNISH and IMPRISON religious Christians who fail to submit to the secular religion. We are literally at the point where the secular state forces 'offending' Christians to attend court-ordered 're-education' sessions to change their allegedly 'wrong' Christian views on the LGBT issue.

Egghead said...

Thanks, Hesp. :)

Dawah is always the point - with Muslims (or secularists). Are Christians converting Muslims, or are Muslims converting the West?

When non-white 'Christians' are practicing tribalism and polygamy and child marriage (wink wink) - with or without the knowledge and permission - but with the funding - of white Christians, is it truly fair to label those non-whites to be Christians?

If your white Christian neighbor was a polygamist with a child bride, would you see him as a Christian - or a pedophile - or a criminal? You see, the Western legal code was developed with Western Christian values that are being completely upended by the introduction of polygamy and child marriage by 1) non-whites (whether polygamous and pedophile non-whites identify as Christians or Muslims), and 2) white Mormons (who were once forced to practice Christian behavior in order to be included in the USA).

Might non-white non-Western Christians who practice tribalism, polygamy, and child marriage really be adherents of Chrislam (a one world religion started by a Nigerian Muslim in the 1980s ) which promotes Muslim values that are 100% antithetical to the values and best interests of white Western Christians?

Egghead said...

More to the point: There are different forms of violence - overt and covert. That's equivalent to your good cop (covert), bad cop (overt) analogy regarding Muslims conquering the West.

In other words, is it REALLY OK if the West accepts tribalism, polygamy, and child marriage - as long as Muslims are NOT blowing up the West? So far, the West has exhibited that same general attitude towards fringe Mormon groups - which get away with tribalism (these groups CONTROL the law in their counties like Sharia Law), polygamy, child marriage, and welfare fraud with the VERY occasional slap on the hand. The West has also allowed Scientologists to get away with many crimes - notably enforced slavery with all of its horrors.

Egghead said...

Remembering Diana West....

From Col. Bunny at GoV:

"...from John T. Flynn’s The Lattimore Story. The full story of the most incredible conspiracy of our time (1953), p. i:

“Asked to tell why he wrote this book, John T . Flynn replied : ‘As the weird story of Owen Lattimore unfolded itself in official documents and sworn testimony, I noted that it had one flaw. It was unbelievable. In a Dumas novel of intrigue at the court of Louis XV, it might be accepted. But in America – the America of the 1950s – it seemed fantastically out of place and utterly incredible. Much has been written about it, but now all the evidence is available. Few have the time or means of sifting the immense folios of testimony and incriminating documents, which were dramatically unearthed in an old barn, as might be done in a screen thriller.

‘I have therefore tried to fit together in this small volume all the characters, episodes, intrigues and confessions buried in 14 large volumes of testimony and documents, out of which emerges the curious story of a conspiracy involving over four dozen writers, journalists, educators and high-ranking government officials – almost all Americans – to force the American State Department to betray China and Korea into the hands of the Communists. Unbelievable as this strange enterprise may seem, the proofs are now all here – not assumptions and suspicions and tortured deductions, but proofs. That is why I have written this book.'”"

Liberty said...

Hi Hesperado,

Thank you for your comment to Egghead describing how you see the relationship between westernised and non-westernised christians unfolding.

I also agree with you that the way to solve the islam problem, is to work for a complete separation between the muslim and non-muslim worlds.

I'm guessing that I differ from you in that I think this could be achieved sort of virtually, by the restoration of free speech.

If no-one was scared to tell the truth and especially mock and criticize islam, I think it would wither away in the west.

Of course it may not be possible to restore free speech without deporting muslims. If that turns out to be the case, I will be in favour of deporting muslims, starting with the most criminal of them.

Liberty said...

Clarification of last sentence in above comment:

I meant to say that if in the future, free speech does get restored but significant nos. of muslims are still terrorizing, there wont be much opposition to deportation because most people will know the truth by then.

I didnt mean to imply that im not in favour of deporting criminal muslims now.