Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (22)
Those with heads still below the clouds and feet firmly on the ground – or simply with heads not in the sand — should be readily able to accept several fundamental truths about Islam and the West.
First, we are at war. The enemy is a soldier, not a criminal.
Second, the enemy and his motives and methods are in plain sight, not remotely a mystery. What inspires them might be incomprehensible to any sane observer, but the bitter fruits of that inspiration are clear as day.
Third, there are ways to respond other than through vapid hand-wringing, hand holding, candle-lit vigils and impotent head-shaking.
Fourth, it is not too late to act, despite decades of poor decisions in the West.
These truths are clear to me, though plainly not to everyone. There is a broad lack of will to recognise this escalaing war and, more culpable than even that, a refusal to identify an enemy, other than dressing him in palliative euphemism. Why this is so, take your pick. Academics have sought to instill an unshakable deference before “the other”, also infusing with reflexive horror the very thought of standing up for, or even recognising, the existence and virtues of Western values, especially Judeo-Christian ones. There is also queasiness at the thought of being called to fight a war in an age of comfort, endless distractions and, let’s be blunt, spinelessness. Top off that list with a simple lack of understanding of how to fight back and then, to complete the recipe, add the mandatory dash of “tolerance”, which apparently means we must tolerate the intolerant and intolerable.
The sneering green Left likes to brand all who dispute global warming as “climate deniers”, which is funny when you think about it because temperatures have flat-lined for almost 20 years, the IPCC admits its models have been hopelessly out of whack, and every Flanneryesque prediction of doom by roasting or melting inevitably falls on its face. There is nothing there to deny, in other words, except rent-seekers’ press releases.
But Islam’s propensity to inspire murderous assaults, well that is very much “there”. Blood on the streets of Manchester, London and, as of last night, the Melbourne suburb of Brighton, attests to that. Yet here, where the evidence of a palpable threat is beyond dispute, a virulent denialism flourishes. Often it is encouraged and abetted by those most loud in their climate alarmism. The infamous episode of Q&A, in which junketeering warmist Lawrence Krauss cast aspersions on whitegoods by way of dismissing Islamic butchery, provides a priceless example:
TONY JONES: Lawrence, we see that Trump is stepping back from some of his positions. Will he step back on…? He’s obviously got within his administration people who are serious climate science deniers.
LAWRENCE KRAUSS: Yes, he certainly does.
So let us start, first of all, with the Kraussian doctrine of dismissal by diminution. “More chance of being hit by a falling fridge than by terrorism,” the great mind pronounced. Tell that to a Coptic Eqyptian, buddy. True or not — and it most certainly isn’t — you are still left with the fact that such logic is irrelevant and, ultimately, entirely meaningless.
Then there are those who simply cannot see any evil whatsoever in Islam. This is the Religion of Peace™ brigade, the ones who insist the threat starts and ends with those “lone wolves”. They swear there is nothing to see here, shrink from appending the label “terrorist”. That would be simplistic stereotyping, don’t you know. More than that, describing someone as a terrorist poses the obvious question: to what end are little girls being blown up and Saturday night revellers knifed? The answer is so obvious denialists cannot utter it, nor will they sit silent and let others do so. The person who speaks the self-evident truth must be torn down, blitzed with a Twitter storm, made the object of ridicule and shunning.
While it seems hardly believable anyone would think this way, many political “leaders” find it convenient to pay lip service. The protagonists of this line cast the enemy as a “criminal” and support only law-enforcement responses. How long might World War Two have lasted if every Luftwaffe pilot downed over Britain were to have been put on trial, with attendant costs and delays. Fortunately, in those days, the ability to recognise a war and discern its foot soldiers had yet to be eroded by cant and cowardice.
Whether belief in the caliphate or a tendency to jihadism is the core business of any or all forms of Islam or merely the whacky obsession of the very few doesn’t matter in practical terms. There are people with certain beliefs who are eager to kill us, that is what matters and, just at the moment, the only thing that matters. Seemingly, many of their co-religionists either agree with the killers, support them actively or passively, give them cover in the Muslim enclaves in Paris, London, Brussels, Manchester or wherever.
On the other side of this particular debate, those who do see a war (and believe it is worth fighting) often get caught up in the task of rebutting the lone-wolf, malevolent-nutter view of jihadism. Such responses, too, are largely irrelevant. In the end, it doesn’t actually matter whether or not jihadism is the result of a spurious interpretation of the Koran, or if that reading is front and centre. Let Muslims and theologians argue the toss on that one. The key issue is that innoents are being killed by those of whose beliefs there can no be a scintilla of doubt. Defining what constitutes a moderate Muslim is a no more than a distraction at the dark end of a cul-de-sac.
Then there are the libertarian/globalist open-borders folk who baulk at border protection measures as an infringement of freedom of movement, who mock walls, either physical or through policy. Libertarians should re-read their Robert Nozick and ponder the first task of government in a minimal state. Or, if Milton Friedman is more to your taste, review his thoughts on the incompatibility of open borders and the welfare state. Sorry, guys, your theorising about a perfect, border-free, libertarian world isn’t remotely convincing.
Then there are the multicultis who simply cannot recognise that immigrants in Western countries – certainly recent waves – do not assimilate to anywhere near the degree their hosts have every right to expect. This is both a consequence of policy and migrants’ own convenience,finding it more congenial and les challenging to live among their own and transplant their old ways in toto to new lands. Champions of this separatism belong to either the “it’s great to have foreign restaurants here” brigade or adhere to the “we are white and boring” line. There can be no doubt innovation and technical progress are enriched by the cross-fertilisation of ideas that can come from inter-racial and inter-cultural mixing. But this happens much, much less than it should in most contemporary high-immigration societies.
Finally, there are the dim-witted politicians who, over the decades, have fallen for some or all of the above twaddle, and who now, like the egregious Merkel, must somehow deal with the smelly parcel of mass immigration they have dropped their own laps. The seething banlieues of Paris and no-go parts of London and the north of England are the catastrophic evidence of their folly. The French priest recently decapitated in his own church a case in point.
Islam denialism has many faces, as we can see. But its overall impact is to lead the West into a swamp of frozen-in-the-headlights, do-nothing capitulation. Jihadism loves a weak horse, as no less an authority on the subject than Osama Bin Laden reminded his followers — and us, if we care to listen.
There are strategic and tactical responses aplenty to terrorism and to jihadism. But first we must recognise the plain truths of our predicament. That means calling out and shaming the deniers loudly and clearly and persistently. It should not need to be done, but in this world they have wrought, there is no alternative.
Foreword: I support AGW, and am happy to debate its denialists such as Paul Collits, the author of this piece.
BUT
Islam is a terrible religion, but according to Pew Research when last I looked, most Muslims (ie around 70-80% of them) harbour no sympathy for jihadists. That stat is probably very fluid right now, though whether upwards or down wards I can’t say; and it leaves about 20-30 % of Muslims as jihadist sympathisers (and amongst those, some supporters).
But I have a challenge I wish to put to every Muslim who wants to debate the issue. (And also prominent Australian parliamentary Muslim Sam Dastyari http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=225099 )
It is this:
The Koran is held to be unamendable and unalterable. But that is not so. Any Muslim can alter his or her own copy by simply opening it at one of its many passages advocating violence: pure undiluted violence; violence right now; violence any and every day. Violence against the ‘infidels’.
This can easily be done by taking a black felt-tipped pen, and blacking out whatever passages the Muslim might choose.
NB There is no shortage of such passages, eg
For a Muslim parliamentarian, lavishly endowed with privileges and perks, and set to retire eventually on a most generous package courtesy of the ‘independent’ Parliamentary Tribunal acting on behalf of the taxpayers who will be funding it, this would best be done in public, and in front of as much of the media as possible.
(And I am sure Sam can have his staffers arrange that.)
NB: If it is ‘blasphemy’ or something to improve the Holy Koran in such a way, what does that say about the whole of Sam’s godawful religion?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
NB If my choice were between polytheism and monotheism, I would choose polytheism every time. The Classical Greeks were polytheists, and built no mean civilisation on the strength of it. But then alas, Constantine’s monotheistic Christianity and its professional clerics got their hooks in, and that was the end of that.
My maths is atrocious, but my calculations show that the lower end of 20% makes it 320 million who are sympathetic towards Jihad (based on the 1.6 billion professed Muslims). Now that’s a staggering figure. Just imagine if there were similar numbers of crusader-like Christians dedicated to the overthrow of Islam: we’d never hear the end of it.
Poor old Ian. It must be awful living in your world of shadows and demons ready to pounce from every nook and cranny, and having to worship nature.
Christianity is Trinitarian, not Monotheistic. Islam is monotheistic. The fact that you are unaware of that significant difference says a lot about your worldview and knowledge priorities.
The Greeks were a warring slave culture and they built their empire at the expense of the helpless. That would 99% likely be you if we were living in a similar culture. They were fine logicians, but it was all rather abstract for them and didn’t have much material benefit. Indeed it was the rejection of Aristotelianism that was necessary for the birth of empirical science.
‘pgang’ or whatever your real name is:
Thank you for that profound example of your own sanctimonious and self-righteous Christian charity: or should that be the hypocrisy of a wolf in a sheep’s clothing?
As you are no doubt unctuously aware, the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 was the first ecumenical council of the Christian Church, and its business was largely taken up by the issue of the mysterious ‘Trinity’. God had begun as one: Yahweh, as worshipped and feared. Christ had shown that he was in constant communion with Yahweh, and had supernatural powers as well: turning water into something better than Grange Hermitage, raising the dead and returning from the dead himself; that sort of trick.
So the Nicean theologians came up with the idea of the Trinity. God is three, but at the same time one. Father, Son and Holy Ghost. God is simultaneously unitarian and trinitarian. 3 in 1, and 3 = 1. Bit of a mystery, but that is what keeps any religion alive. The Nicene Creed thus has it both ways. God is one God, and Christ is one Lord: that ‘Lord’ card quietly slipped into the pack.
“We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation,
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/credo.htm
Alarmism is disproved by basic physics, Beer-Lambert’s Law which shows even if CO2 is a dominant forcing it’s effect decreases logarithmically with concentration. But CO2 is not the dominant forcing, H2O is as Ramanathan’s spectral analysis of OLR shows at Table 6 being 3 times more powerful than CO2:
http://climateknowledge.org/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Ramanathan_Coakley_Radiative_Convection_RevGeophys_%201978.pdf
In any event CO2 increase is natural as bulk analysis and application of the airborne fraction as described by Knoor and others shows:
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/defective-agw-science.html
The primary weapon that the deniers have is idiots trotting out some variant of “all religions are the same” (typically with a “But Christianity and/or Judaism are worse”.
When you have heard years of rants about evils of Jews, or of the Salvation Army, the knee jerk reaction to a rant against any religion is to assume that it is at best unjustified and at worst a deliberate attempt to undermine social networks in preparation for society’s overthrow (eg Marxism).
The Classical Greeks you praise – killed Socrates for blasphemy. (But not for child abuse!)
The Constantine you condemn – granted full religious freedom throughout the Empire. (That his successors only scaled back after the pagan temples were used as bases for conspiracy against the Empire. Hmm, similarities to Aussie mosques anyone?)
So why would anyone take *your* views on Islam seriously? And sadly, the views of wiser individuals are being dismissed in the mistaken belief that they are the same as yours.
whitelaughter (or whatever your real name is)
Do yourself a big favour. Get hold of Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great.
Read, mark learn and inwardly digest.
I am well aware of the amusement value to be gained from laughing at Christopher Hitchen’s infantile drivel, but as his existence embarrasses more intelligent atheists, I’ll turn elsewhere.
A strong argument Mr Collits, and indeed we need to call out the deniers, despite the fact the occasional Quadrant reader believes ‘Venting is ok, but resolves nothing of practical use. The articles here are now quite repetitive and impotent. Pointless’.
On the contrary, I think one needs to promote the same message again and again. For goodness sake the arguments of the left are as predictable as night following day, and based on easily exposed misinformation about Islam, but even more so about our Judaic Christian civilisation. Your contribution is this article, submitted to Quadrant on-line so that the rest of us can read it and further our collective understanding. My role is to respond and offer my own meagre contribution to the debate, a small part of the community mind if you like: a quieter albeit more subtle recourse to running down Haldon St, Lakemba, AK-47 blazing, my holy cross bandana for all to see.
I do not subscribe to the sentiment that
“Venting is ok, but resolves nothing of practical use. The articles here are now quite repetitive and impotent. Pointless”
but I do sympathise with it to some extent.
What I find far more regrettable is the sad fact that all these fine articles appear in this largely “offbeat” but excellent publication, for the benefit and enjoyment of only a handful of loyal, dedicated readers, most of whom are pretty c!ear on the alarming matters discussed. In other words, simply reminding the already converted of what they know only too well. Perhaps the Quadrant Board should investigate the possibilities of syndicating with some like-minded publications both domestically and internationally.
? “In other words, simply reminding the already converted of what they know only too well”
Yes, well that’s my point. Thank you for at least addressing it; most don’t as they have no useful, practical answer (as I do not, apart from agreeing with Jim Molan’s view that immigration quotas must be even more meticulously investigated).
“What I find far more regrettable is the sad fact that all these fine articles appear in this largely “offbeat” but excellent publication, for the benefit and enjoyment of only a handful of loyal, dedicated readers,”
A serious problem.
The thing is though, Quadrant isn’t just politics; poetry, book reviews, biographies are all of good value. Sharing the non political stuff on Facebook etc will raise the magazine’s profile among the politically disinterested/hostile readers. Comparing Quadrant to Overland, Quadrant wins hands’ down; when I discovered both, I initially read both, before discarding Overland because of the poor quality of the writing.
Ok, so we need to call them out, agreed. There’s a lot more people doing that recently. Step one.
What comes after that? Bashing down doors won’t stop it. What we need is a strong counter-view, a meaningful rallying point, a complete narrative, some kind of reason; and as we now know secular humanism has spectacularly failed us.
So presumably by it being ‘not too late to act’ you mean that you will start to throw your support behind the Christian church, because I can’t see any other worldview out there that has the power to meet Islam head on.
The Christian church?! – You are jesting, surely! What with the Pope, the Archbishop of C., a clergy firmly attached to the touchy-feely greenies and open-border nutters? False hope, I’m afraid. A belief in the spiritual aspect of life, Christian or otherwise, is no guarantee of sanity. The fact that Muslims also belong to that club – and boy, do they ever believe! – is an excellent case in point.
Pgang Yes that’s just what we need your god against theirs. I think they tried that before and to a point it worked very well I suppose in the big sweep of history.
The problem is of course,people like my sons who will be the ones wearing the crosses on their tabbards and that is why those who hold your worldview are scary.
Doubling down lunacy is no help, unusually I find myself in complete agreement with Bill Martin on that point at least.
The Christian West repelled Islam repeatedly, so yes, good. Jewish Israel has proven superb at the task. Largely Hindu India has survived, and simply out-developed Pakistan, so a potential ally: but only once Modi has been replaced. Back when they were Animists, the Mongols could keep Muslims subjugated, but those days are long gone.
That’s Team Freedom. Everyone else has failed at the task. The 50+ million Buddhists who inhabited India were slaughtered like sheep, unable to withstand Tamerlane; those in what is now Indonesia are also long gone, and Thailand is crumbling; Burma a false hope, the dictatorial govt simply lashes out at all who don’t instinctively obey it.
The Marxists failed, as they did against every other religion they persecuted; Islam continues to spread across China. Their trendy fellow travellers are useless at best and traitors at worst.
Nor is there anywhere else to turn. While Christian Ethiopia held out for over a millennia, they were outflanked and nothing else in Africa can stand against Islam. Japanese culture collapses whenever it is put to the test; the nation collapsed after repelling the Mongols, unable to cope with winning a war but not gaining territory, and submitted abjectly to the Americans twice.
So yeah: The Christian Church, the Jewish State, and (maybe) the Indian subcontinent.
Until you god-botherers lose your fear of the dark, religious belief, the great scourge of personkind, (like the PC?) will ensure that war never stops. Hatred and fear will continue to be the main driver of human activity.
As regards Islam, the average IQ of the people of the Arab world is 70, i.e. they are barbaric simpletons who will never assimilate to, or be able to form their own modern scientifically and techonologically advanced society.
War WILL NEVER (permanently) STOP OCCURRING. Any belief that it could ever be stopped is utopian nonsense without basis in any empirical data.
Islam is the problem: it is a military ideology supersessionist in attitude to every other philosophy and religion. It was set up by a warlord to do 2 things: fight the Kafir and suppress the converts. It regards any offer of compromise or appeasement as weakness and uses any method to achieve its aims.
Islam must either be reformed to accept the dominance of the secular Western model, be banned completely or destroyed.
Clearly, the west has been chasing the tail with respect to terrorism .What the west needs to do in my opinion , is to force the saudis and Iranians to sort out the mess they have created. Why should the west do the dirty work. Crippling sanctions could do the trick should they balk.
The only case of sanctions ‘working’ that I can think of is when the USA cut Japan’s oil supply after the Rape of Nanking.
We know it worked because the Japanese launched the pacific war to get the oil back.
So really not an option.
Forting up and letting the Islamic world slaughter each other does seem like the least worst option though.
First and foremost the west needs to stay out of the business of sovereign nations. The West’s involvement in all aspects of the middle East ever since the discovery of oil there and including the establishment of Israel is the primary source of agitation in the region.