"There was passionate support for foreign news reports at the Lowy Institute's media awards in Sydney on Saturday night at which the New York Times columnist Bret Stephens delivered the keynote address... Stephens referred to the controversy that followed Lowy's invitation for him to speak at the media award ceremony, which was to be named after the late ABC broadcaster Mark Colvin. But Lowy removed Colvin's name after a family disagreement. 'I'm aware of the controversy that has gone with my selection as your speaker,' Stephens said." (Guthrie's content shake-up threatens ABC empires, Amanda Meade, theguardian.com, 29/9/17)
Hmm... The controversy that has gone with my selection as speaker.
It appears that Colvin's wife, in particular, objected to her husband's name being associated with that of Stephens. But why? Could it possibly have had something to do with Stephens' Zionism?
Since this was nowhere explicit in Stephens' LI speech (on dissent), presumably only the brows of the more informed in the audience would have furrowed at the ludicrousness of Natan Sharansky being mentioned in the same breath as Galileo, Nelson Mandela, and Rosa Parks, and Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the US, being singled out as a victim (of "organized claques of hecklers"/"junior totalitarians" no less!), we really need to look elsewhere for it.
Over at PragerU.com, for example, where Stephens lets it all hang out. Gird your loins for What's holding the Arab world back?:
"In the judo competition of the 2016 Olympics in Brazil, an Israeli heavyweight judo fighter named Or Sasson defeated his Egyptian opponent, Islam El Shehaby, in a first-round match. The Egyptian then refused to shake the Israeli's extended hand, earning boos from the crowd.*
"If you want the short answer for why the Arab world is sliding into the abyss, look no further than this little incident. It illustrates how hatred of Israel and Jews corrupts every element of Arab society.
"You won't find this explanation for the Arab world's decline among journalists and academics. They reflexively blame the usual suspects: the legacy of colonialism, unemployed youth, the Sunni-Shia sectarian divide, and every other politically correct excuse they can think of. For them, hatred of Israel is treated like sand in Arabia - just part of the landscape.
"Yet the fact remains that over the past 70 years the Arab world expelled virtually all of its Jews, some 900,000 people, while holding on to its hatred of them. Over time the result proved fatal: a combination of lost human capital, expensive wars against Israel, and an intellectual life perverted by conspiracy theories and a perpetual search for scapegoats. The Arab world's problems are a problem of the Arab mindset, and the name of that problem is anti-Semitism.
"As a historical phenomenon, this is not unique. Historian Paul Johnson has noted that wherever anti-Semitism took hold, social and political decline almost inevitably followed. Just a few examples:
"Spain expelled its Jews in 1492. The effect, Johnson noted, 'was to deprive Spain (and its colonies) of a class already notable for the astute handling of finance.'
"In czarist Russia, the adoption of numerous anti-Semitic laws ultimately weakened and corrupted the entire Russian government. These laws also led to mass Jewish emigration, resulting in a breathtaking loss of intellectual and human capital.
"Germany might well have won the race for an atomic bomb if Hitler hadn't sent Jewish scientists like Albert Einstein and Edward Teller into exile in the US.
"These patterns were replicated in the Arab world. Contrary to myth, the cause was not the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. There were bloody anti-Jewish pogroms in 1929, Iraq in 1941, and Libya in 1945.
"Nor is it accurate to blame Israel for fuelling anti-Semitism by refusing to trade land for peace.
"Among Egyptians, hatred of Israel barely abated after Prime Minister Menachem Begin returned the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. And among Palestinians, anti-Semitism became markedly worse during the years of the Oslo peace process.
"Johnson calls anti-Semitism a 'highly infectious' disease capable of overwhelming intellectuals and simpletons alike. Its potency, he noted, lies in transforming a personal and instinctive irrationalism into a political and systematic one. For the Jew hater, every crime has the same culprit and every problem has the same solution. Anti-Semitism makes the world seem simple. In doing so, it condemns the anti-Semite to a permanent darkness.
"Today there is no great university in the Arab world, no serious scientific research, a stunted literary culture. In 2015, the US Patent Office reported 3,804 patents from Israel, as compared with 30 from Egypt, the largest Arab country. Hatred of Israel and Jews has also deprived the Arab world of both the resources and the example of its neighbour. Israel quietly supplies water to Jordan, helping to ease the burden of Syrian refugees, and quietly provides surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to Egypt to fight ISIS in the Sinai. But this is largely unknown among Arabs, for whom the only permissible image of Israel is an Israeli soldier in riot gear, abusing a Palestinian. Successful nations make a point of trying to learn from their neighbours. The Arab world has been taught over generations only to hate theirs.
"This may be starting to change. Recently, the Arab world has been forced to face up to its own failings in ways it cannot easily blame on Israel. The change can be seen in the budding rapprochement between Jerusalem and Cairo, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.
"But that's not enough. So long as an Arab athlete can't pay his Israeli opposite the courtesy of a handshake, the disease of the Arab mind and the misfortunes of its world will continue.
"For Israel, this is a pity.
"For the Arabs, it's a calamity."
See what I mean?
[*"I have no problem with Jewish people or any other religion... But for personal reasons, you can't ask me to shake the hand of anyone from this State... " (Islam El Shehaby: 'I've respected the judo rules, lespritdujudo.com)]
Showing posts with label Dennis Prager. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dennis Prager. Show all posts
Saturday, September 30, 2017
Thursday, September 28, 2017
The White Man's Burden Rides Again
Check out the abstract for The case for colonialism by Bruce Gilley, published in Third World Quarterly, 8/9/17. Gilley is an associate professor of political science at Portland State University:
"For the last 100 years, Western colonialism has had a bad name. It is high time to question this orthodoxy. Western colonialism was, as a general rule, both objectively beneficial and subjectively legitimate in most of the places where it was found, using realistic measures of those concepts. The countries that embraced their colonial inheritance, by and large, did better than those that spurned it. Anti-colonial ideology imposed grave harms on subject peoples and continues to thwart sustained development and a fruitful encounter with modernity in many places. Colonialism can be recovered by weak and fragile states today in three ways: by reclaiming colonial modes of governance; by recolonising some areas; and by creating new Western colonies from scratch."
So what's next for the TWQ?
Hmm... hey, I've got just the thing: HW Crocker's If you live in freedom, thank the British Empire (PragerU.com):
"Over the last 400 years, what power has done the most to spread the ideals of limited government, an independent judiciary, certain inalienable rights, and free markets. That power would be the British Empire, the largest empire the world has ever known, which made these ideals global aspirations. It was the British Empire, along with America, that defended these ideals in two colossal world wars.
"Freedom was an Englishman's right - and wherever he went, he took that right with him. Whether he was an English colonist in America, governing himself through a locally-elected assembly; or an English adventurer, like Sir Stamford Raffles, creating the free-market city state of Singapore, or an English officer, like T.E. Lawrence, leading Arab tribesmen against the Turks, the British always thought of themselves as liberators, as bringers of freedom. The British believed the final and necessary justification of their empire was a moral one. The British kept the peace; they brought sound, honest administration; and they insisted that basic moral standards were honored.
"The British did not try to nation-build in the way we think of it now. They were under no illusions about making Arabs or Afghans or Zulus into Englishmen. They were more content to leave people alone, to let them be themselves, to govern them with the lightest possible hand.
"In American history, we remember this when we think of the British Empire's so-called 'benign neglect.' We can see it throughout the history of the British Empire. Think about the vast territory of the Sudan - it was governed by 140 British civil-servants. Even Gandhi praised the British Empire, paraphrasing Jefferson, saying that he believed that the best government was the government that governed least, and that he found that the British Empire guaranteed his freedom and governed him least of all.
"In the defense of freedom, the empire drew moral lines. No power did more to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the modern world than did the British Empire. The British treasury spent enormous sums to liberate slaves and compensate slave-owners in the Caribbean. The Royal Navy had, as a primary duty, the eradication of the slave-trade - and, in fact, abolishing the slave trade became a major factor during the expansion of the British Empire. The British enforced a Pax Britannica, putting down pirates, taming headhunters, and keeping the peace between previously warring tribes and religions. While respecting - and often ruling through - local leaders, the British still insisted on certain Judeo-Christian moral standards. They were not, in that respect, multiculturalists. They had a firm sense of right and wrong. When Sir Charles Napier was confronted by the practice of suttee - widow-burning - in India, he told the Brahmin priests involved that he understood it was their custom. But the British had a custom, too: They hanged men who burned women alive, and their goods were confiscated. So, if the Brahmins insisted on continuing their tradition of widow-burning, then he would insist on following his British tradition of hanging the murderers of widows. Widow-burning in India soon ceased.
"But we don't have to dig far into history, into the abolition of slavery and widow-burning, to find the British Empire on the side of moral right and freedom. We can think of events within our own lifetimes or those of our parents and grandparents. When we think of the two deadliest threats to freedom in the twentieth century, we generally think of Communism and Nazism. But how many remember that in 1940, after the Hitler-Stalin pact, and after the fall of France, one power, the British Empire, stood alone in mortal combat against the combined tyrannies of the world.
"Even where the British have merited criticism, as in Ireland, there is more to the imperial story. During negotiations to create the Irish Republic, for instance, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, who could speak Welsh, reminded the Irish nationalist and Gaelic extremist Eamon de Valera that the Celts never had a word for 'republic.' It was an idea given to them by the English.
"This is our own history, too. If you love America, you should also love the power that gave us our sense of inalienable rights - rights traceable back to Magna Carta. It all started in America with the British Empire, a great, liberty-loving empire. It is the empire's legacy - the English-speaking world - that remains the great global guardian of freedom today."
"For the last 100 years, Western colonialism has had a bad name. It is high time to question this orthodoxy. Western colonialism was, as a general rule, both objectively beneficial and subjectively legitimate in most of the places where it was found, using realistic measures of those concepts. The countries that embraced their colonial inheritance, by and large, did better than those that spurned it. Anti-colonial ideology imposed grave harms on subject peoples and continues to thwart sustained development and a fruitful encounter with modernity in many places. Colonialism can be recovered by weak and fragile states today in three ways: by reclaiming colonial modes of governance; by recolonising some areas; and by creating new Western colonies from scratch."
So what's next for the TWQ?
Hmm... hey, I've got just the thing: HW Crocker's If you live in freedom, thank the British Empire (PragerU.com):
"Over the last 400 years, what power has done the most to spread the ideals of limited government, an independent judiciary, certain inalienable rights, and free markets. That power would be the British Empire, the largest empire the world has ever known, which made these ideals global aspirations. It was the British Empire, along with America, that defended these ideals in two colossal world wars.
"Freedom was an Englishman's right - and wherever he went, he took that right with him. Whether he was an English colonist in America, governing himself through a locally-elected assembly; or an English adventurer, like Sir Stamford Raffles, creating the free-market city state of Singapore, or an English officer, like T.E. Lawrence, leading Arab tribesmen against the Turks, the British always thought of themselves as liberators, as bringers of freedom. The British believed the final and necessary justification of their empire was a moral one. The British kept the peace; they brought sound, honest administration; and they insisted that basic moral standards were honored.
"The British did not try to nation-build in the way we think of it now. They were under no illusions about making Arabs or Afghans or Zulus into Englishmen. They were more content to leave people alone, to let them be themselves, to govern them with the lightest possible hand.
"In American history, we remember this when we think of the British Empire's so-called 'benign neglect.' We can see it throughout the history of the British Empire. Think about the vast territory of the Sudan - it was governed by 140 British civil-servants. Even Gandhi praised the British Empire, paraphrasing Jefferson, saying that he believed that the best government was the government that governed least, and that he found that the British Empire guaranteed his freedom and governed him least of all.
"In the defense of freedom, the empire drew moral lines. No power did more to abolish slavery and the slave trade in the modern world than did the British Empire. The British treasury spent enormous sums to liberate slaves and compensate slave-owners in the Caribbean. The Royal Navy had, as a primary duty, the eradication of the slave-trade - and, in fact, abolishing the slave trade became a major factor during the expansion of the British Empire. The British enforced a Pax Britannica, putting down pirates, taming headhunters, and keeping the peace between previously warring tribes and religions. While respecting - and often ruling through - local leaders, the British still insisted on certain Judeo-Christian moral standards. They were not, in that respect, multiculturalists. They had a firm sense of right and wrong. When Sir Charles Napier was confronted by the practice of suttee - widow-burning - in India, he told the Brahmin priests involved that he understood it was their custom. But the British had a custom, too: They hanged men who burned women alive, and their goods were confiscated. So, if the Brahmins insisted on continuing their tradition of widow-burning, then he would insist on following his British tradition of hanging the murderers of widows. Widow-burning in India soon ceased.
"But we don't have to dig far into history, into the abolition of slavery and widow-burning, to find the British Empire on the side of moral right and freedom. We can think of events within our own lifetimes or those of our parents and grandparents. When we think of the two deadliest threats to freedom in the twentieth century, we generally think of Communism and Nazism. But how many remember that in 1940, after the Hitler-Stalin pact, and after the fall of France, one power, the British Empire, stood alone in mortal combat against the combined tyrannies of the world.
"Even where the British have merited criticism, as in Ireland, there is more to the imperial story. During negotiations to create the Irish Republic, for instance, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, who could speak Welsh, reminded the Irish nationalist and Gaelic extremist Eamon de Valera that the Celts never had a word for 'republic.' It was an idea given to them by the English.
"This is our own history, too. If you love America, you should also love the power that gave us our sense of inalienable rights - rights traceable back to Magna Carta. It all started in America with the British Empire, a great, liberty-loving empire. It is the empire's legacy - the English-speaking world - that remains the great global guardian of freedom today."
Monday, August 9, 2010
Onward Judeo-Christian Soldiers
Do your ears prick up when you hear the term 'Judeo-Christian'? Have you noticed a marked increase in its use? Do you know what it means, or, more to the point, what its users mean by it? Has it ever struck you as... wink, wink, nudge, nudge... loaded? Have you ever wondered whether it's just code for Christian Zionist? Well, you might like to consider the following clarification:
"The United States of America is the only country in history to have defined itself as Judeo-Christian... the Christians who founded America saw themselves as heirs to the Hebrew Bible, as much as to theirs [and] strongly identified with the Jews... [T]hose who most identify with the Judeo-Christian essence of America are more likely to believe in the moral worthiness of dying to liberate other countries - not only Europe, but Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. That is why America stands alone in protecting two little countries threatened with extinction - Israel and Taiwan... Judeo-Christian [also means] a belief in the biblical G-d of Israel... That is why those who most affirm Judeo-Christian values believe that war... is on more than a few occasions a moral duty. Nothing 'Judeo' ever sanctioned pacifism... [the] Hebrew Prophet, Joel... said... 'Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears'... [T]hose who want Judeo-Christian values to disappear from American public life affirm multiculturalism [and] seek to remove mention of G-d from all public life..." (What does Judeo-Christian mean? Dennis Prager, jewishworldreview.com, 30/3/04)
Interestingly, the term cropped up in a recent questionnaire directed at Australian political parties in the context of the coming federal election by the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), which claims to represent one million Christians, and whose "vision is to see Christian principles and ethics accepted and influencing the way we are governed." In reference to the government's proposed national history curriculum, the ACL complained that it "fails to acknowledge the significance of Australia's Judeo-Christian heritage," and asked, "What place, if any, should the Bible have in the national English curriculum, given its status as the most printed and translated literary work, and its obvious effect on the development of western culture, literature and art?"*
It is valid, therefore, to ask to what extent its Managing Director, Brigadier Jim Wallace, subscribes to Prager's model of Judeo-Christianity. Strangely, for someone with direct experience of the bloody consequences of Israeli aggression, he's curiously detached: "I was in a Palestinian refugee camp (as an unarmed United Nations observer in 1980)," Wallace recounted in a 2003 interview, "and some shells had landed [MERC: Note the passive voice here.] and killed some people. The Palestinians understandably held us accountable for that because we were stopping them attacking into Israel but weren't stopping them being bombed and shelled every day. They were a bit angry about that and thrust my hand into the blood that was on a car where a woman and daughter had been killed by one of the shells. They were considering executing us [MERC: Wallace's Arabic is that good?] and I suppose that's a time when you've really just got to trust God, and remember that you've got a big God which, drawing on images out of Isaiah 40, I was able to do. God changed the situation by changing hearts - they just let us go for some reason. It was quite amazing." (sightmagazine.com.au, 1/4/03)
Hm... just lie back and think of Isaiah, eh?
Wallace was also an uncritical supporter of the war on Iraq. Speaking of which, take a look at the incredibly selective concern expressed in the same interview: "Having lived in the Middle East, I'm very much praying for all the people in the Middle East. They're all God's children and I'm praying particularly for the Iraqi church... and of course, I'm personally praying for the safety of our servicemen and indeed all the Coalition servicemen because having been a soldier, I know that... they're there because they believe that what they're doing is serving their country. I might say that in doing that, there's an incredible cost in saying goodbye to their loved ones and knowing that they may not come back." (ibid)
So (Orwell again) all God's (or is that G-d's) children are equal, but some are more equal than others?
In case one is inclined to underestimate the clout of Jim Wallace and his ACL, consider this: "Julia Gillard will intensify her pitch to Christian voters with a major expansion of the school chaplaincy program. Despite identifying herself as an atheist, Ms Gillard has been working hard to court the powerful Christian lobby... Ms Gillard will today announce an allocation of $222 million to boost the number of chaplains by more than one-third... Late last week Ms Gillard met the Australian Christian Lobby to answer questions about her views on religion... The group's managing director, Jim Wallace, said Ms Gillard's atheism was an issue for many Christians... But he said Ms Gillard had assured him that despite her lack of faith, many of her values had been shaped by religion." (Gillard pitches to Christian voters, Josh Gordon, The Age, 8/8/10)
Will wonders never cease?: an atheist whose values have been shaped by religion!
Nor is the leader of Australia's Catholics, Cardinal George Pell, averse to throwing around the term Judeo-Christian, most recently from his Sunday media pulpit: "Many, including myself, are concerned about the environment, so my second point was to urge my listeners to examine the policies of the Greens on their website and judge for themselves how thoroughly anti-Christian they are... They claimed humans are simply another smarter animal... This Green ethic is designed to replace Judaeo-Christianity." (Greens are anti-Christian, Cardinal George Pell, The Sunday Telegraph, 8/8/10)
BTW, you'll be pleased to know that the atheist whose values have been shaped by religion has promised $1.5 million dollars worth of taxpayers' money towards the canonisation of Australia's first saint, Mary McKillop.
[*Re an attempt to inject agenda into the national curriculum by the judeo half of the combo, see my 12/4/10 post Sam Lipski's national Curriculum.]
"The United States of America is the only country in history to have defined itself as Judeo-Christian... the Christians who founded America saw themselves as heirs to the Hebrew Bible, as much as to theirs [and] strongly identified with the Jews... [T]hose who most identify with the Judeo-Christian essence of America are more likely to believe in the moral worthiness of dying to liberate other countries - not only Europe, but Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. That is why America stands alone in protecting two little countries threatened with extinction - Israel and Taiwan... Judeo-Christian [also means] a belief in the biblical G-d of Israel... That is why those who most affirm Judeo-Christian values believe that war... is on more than a few occasions a moral duty. Nothing 'Judeo' ever sanctioned pacifism... [the] Hebrew Prophet, Joel... said... 'Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears'... [T]hose who want Judeo-Christian values to disappear from American public life affirm multiculturalism [and] seek to remove mention of G-d from all public life..." (What does Judeo-Christian mean? Dennis Prager, jewishworldreview.com, 30/3/04)
Interestingly, the term cropped up in a recent questionnaire directed at Australian political parties in the context of the coming federal election by the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), which claims to represent one million Christians, and whose "vision is to see Christian principles and ethics accepted and influencing the way we are governed." In reference to the government's proposed national history curriculum, the ACL complained that it "fails to acknowledge the significance of Australia's Judeo-Christian heritage," and asked, "What place, if any, should the Bible have in the national English curriculum, given its status as the most printed and translated literary work, and its obvious effect on the development of western culture, literature and art?"*
It is valid, therefore, to ask to what extent its Managing Director, Brigadier Jim Wallace, subscribes to Prager's model of Judeo-Christianity. Strangely, for someone with direct experience of the bloody consequences of Israeli aggression, he's curiously detached: "I was in a Palestinian refugee camp (as an unarmed United Nations observer in 1980)," Wallace recounted in a 2003 interview, "and some shells had landed [MERC: Note the passive voice here.] and killed some people. The Palestinians understandably held us accountable for that because we were stopping them attacking into Israel but weren't stopping them being bombed and shelled every day. They were a bit angry about that and thrust my hand into the blood that was on a car where a woman and daughter had been killed by one of the shells. They were considering executing us [MERC: Wallace's Arabic is that good?] and I suppose that's a time when you've really just got to trust God, and remember that you've got a big God which, drawing on images out of Isaiah 40, I was able to do. God changed the situation by changing hearts - they just let us go for some reason. It was quite amazing." (sightmagazine.com.au, 1/4/03)
Hm... just lie back and think of Isaiah, eh?
Wallace was also an uncritical supporter of the war on Iraq. Speaking of which, take a look at the incredibly selective concern expressed in the same interview: "Having lived in the Middle East, I'm very much praying for all the people in the Middle East. They're all God's children and I'm praying particularly for the Iraqi church... and of course, I'm personally praying for the safety of our servicemen and indeed all the Coalition servicemen because having been a soldier, I know that... they're there because they believe that what they're doing is serving their country. I might say that in doing that, there's an incredible cost in saying goodbye to their loved ones and knowing that they may not come back." (ibid)
So (Orwell again) all God's (or is that G-d's) children are equal, but some are more equal than others?
In case one is inclined to underestimate the clout of Jim Wallace and his ACL, consider this: "Julia Gillard will intensify her pitch to Christian voters with a major expansion of the school chaplaincy program. Despite identifying herself as an atheist, Ms Gillard has been working hard to court the powerful Christian lobby... Ms Gillard will today announce an allocation of $222 million to boost the number of chaplains by more than one-third... Late last week Ms Gillard met the Australian Christian Lobby to answer questions about her views on religion... The group's managing director, Jim Wallace, said Ms Gillard's atheism was an issue for many Christians... But he said Ms Gillard had assured him that despite her lack of faith, many of her values had been shaped by religion." (Gillard pitches to Christian voters, Josh Gordon, The Age, 8/8/10)
Will wonders never cease?: an atheist whose values have been shaped by religion!
Nor is the leader of Australia's Catholics, Cardinal George Pell, averse to throwing around the term Judeo-Christian, most recently from his Sunday media pulpit: "Many, including myself, are concerned about the environment, so my second point was to urge my listeners to examine the policies of the Greens on their website and judge for themselves how thoroughly anti-Christian they are... They claimed humans are simply another smarter animal... This Green ethic is designed to replace Judaeo-Christianity." (Greens are anti-Christian, Cardinal George Pell, The Sunday Telegraph, 8/8/10)
BTW, you'll be pleased to know that the atheist whose values have been shaped by religion has promised $1.5 million dollars worth of taxpayers' money towards the canonisation of Australia's first saint, Mary McKillop.
[*Re an attempt to inject agenda into the national curriculum by the judeo half of the combo, see my 12/4/10 post Sam Lipski's national Curriculum.]
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The Pundit's Pundit
US scholera Daniel Pipes is in town. We are are honoured. The Man is a scholera's scholera. His profound insights into what makes Muslims tick(ing bombs), drawing on only the most scholeraly of sources, is not for the layman. They require explication by one who has studied for years in The Master's madrasa. As it happens, I am one such. I can read his runes and tease out his subtleties. Hence this post.
Daniel Pipes, I should explain, is director of Islamofabulism Forum and is in Australia for the Intelligence Insulted debate, sponsored by the Sydney Morning Herald and the St James Ethics Centre this very evening (15/4/08) in Sydney. So sought after is he that the SMH's cunning competitor, The Australian, actually mounted a pre-emptive coup, prevailing upon The Master to allow the publication of a talk he had delivered to assorted worshipful Quadranters at a Quadrant soiree the night before.*
Here are excerpts from The Master's message to the Quadrant faithful, published under the title: Europe or Eurabia? Peaceful integration is the least likely way Europe will cope with Islam. My exegesis follows each precious pearl of wisdumb.
"I foresee potentially one of 3 paths for Europe: Muslims dominating, Muslims rejected or harmonious integration."
In his discussion of the first - "Eurabia" - option, The Master quotes the very creme de la creme of Western scholeraship on Islam, the late Oriana (Ignorantissima) Fallaci (Europe as "a colony of Islam") and Mark Steyn-Gang (Europe will "disappear" this century). These two, along with The Master himself of course, constitute the very doyen of the Islamofabulist school of hysterical scholeraship. I should add that, in invoking them, the master was obviously mindful of Quadrant's requirement for the kind of intellectual rigor mortis so prized by the eminent scholeras who write for that 'steamed journal.
"The secularism that predominates in Europe, especially among its elites leads to alienation from the Judeo-Christian tradition, empty church pews and a fascination with Islam."
Precisely! What the Master means by this is that because our political and cultural movers & shakers are so pissed off with JC (Judeo-Christianity that is), they are therefore magnetically drawn, as it were, to Islam. The Master's failure to cite any evidence whatever for this profoundly counter-intuitive insight is deliberate. I should point out that what constitutes the bleeding obvious for him invariably has to be spelt out for lesser mortals. And that is what I am here for. The evidence is there for all to see. Just open your eyes. Are you aware for example that Blair, Sarkozy and Berlusconi, to name but three of Europe's political elite, have all converted to Islam? No? Typical! Blair, in the grip of his "fascination with Islam" has tossed in his job and left Londonistan for Hamastan on a Jihad Airways jet. Sarkozy has just fallen under the spell of that bewitching houri Khalida Baroudi, and Berlusconi has just re-emerged from a period of political Shia-style occultation and re-taken the Italian presidency, sporting (at least Oriana's unfortunate demise spared her this horror) new, black locks!
"Muslims display a religious fervour that translates into jihadi sensibility, a supremacism towards non-Muslims and an expectation that Europe is waiting for conversion to Islam."
The Master is telling us here that French Muslims, to take but one example, are in the process of losing the little Garlic sangfroid that might have rubbed off on them over their civilizing years in France and are willy nilly foaming at the mouth as their once latent inner jihadi terrorists, conjured up by the Terrorist Masters of 9/11, take over. They are, even as my trembling fingers type, roaming the effete streets of gay Paris with a superior air, knocking on the doors of its unsuspecting citizens and tempting the unfortunates within (who, if they'd only known what was coming, would've been out packing the pews!) by proposing a date with 72 virginal Khalida Baroudi look-alikes.
"The contrast in faith also has demographic implications, with Christians having on average 1.4 children a woman...and Muslims enjoying [wink, wink, nudge, nudge, you bet they're enjoying it, the randy buggers!] a dramatically higher...fertlity rate... Russia could become a Muslim-majority country in 2050."
This means that because a European woman only has 1.4 kids, the .4 kid is well, pretty much a dud and has to be discarded. But your randy Muslim, he's fairly pumpin' 'em out, know what I mean? None of this .4 nonsense or anything like that! And as for Russia, there's only one explanation for its "fascination," first with Afghanistan and now with Chechnya. As The Master has pointed out, it's that "fascination with Islam" which comes over any European whose bum is not firmly planted on a pew.
"To employ enough workers to fund existing pension plans, Europe needs millions of immigrants, and these tend to be disproportionately Muslim due to...the turmoil in majority-Muslim countries."
I hasten to point out here that The Master is not, repeat not, implying that said "turmoil" has anything whatever to do with those millions of Iraqi and Afghan refugees liberated from their countries by the his uncle, Sam.
"In addition, many Europeans no longer cherish their history, mores and customs. Guilt about fascism, racism and imperialism leaves many with a sense that their own culture has less value than that of immigrants."
Yes! Yes! The Master is spot on here. If only the real Europeans would cast aside that burdensome, self-hating (The Master calls it "self-disdain") "guilt" and once more return to their fascist, racist, imperialist roots! Unleash their inner Hitlers, Mussolinis and Francos! Cleanse Europe of the Muslim enemy within! And then, and then, take the fight to the Muslim hordes without!
And now for the second option: what might be termed the Reconquista option, or in terms most Australians can understand - Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi. Why dontcha go back where ya came from, Leb! "Indigenous Europeans could resist... they can at any time reassert control should they see Muslims posing a threat to a way of life. This impulse can be seen at work in the French anti-hijab legislation or in Geert Wilder's film, Fitna."
The Master is positively Churchillian, is he not? Can't you see his subtle call to arms? We shall fight them in the high schools! We shall fight them in the cinemas!
"Anti-immigrant parties gain in strength; a potential nativist movement is taking shape across Europe as political parties opposed to immigration focus increasingly on Islam and Muslims."
Now I know what you're thinking, but your wrong. The Master's wording is perhaps too subtle for you ignoramuses. The word he used was "nativist", not Nazi. The Master knows full well that the only Nazis in the world today are among the Muslim untermenschen. Just because "the British National Party, Belgium's Vlaamse Belang, France's National Front, the Austrian Freedom Party, the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands and the Danish People's Party" will (should they gain power) "reject multiculturalism, cut back on immigration, encourage repatriation of immigrants, support Christian insitutions, increase indigenous European birthrates and broadly attempt to re-establish traditional ways," does not mean that they are Nazi, merely "nativist."
The Master does, however, make clear that that's a most unlikely scenario. As our Israeli friends never tire of reminding us, the fascist virus has decamped from Europe to the Middle East where there are now more Hitlers than you can poke the proverbial stick at. The Europeans are now mere pussy cats, and The Master lets us in on this terrifying little secret: "If anyone is likely to initiate violence, it is the Muslims. They have already engaged in many acts of violence and seem to be spoiling for more."
The third, or "harmonious integration," option is just not on according to The Master. And here he quotes with approval yet another in his suite of impeccably authoritative (and versatile)scholeras, "American columnist [& radio talk show host & pro-war Republican spruiker of American exceptionalism and Judeo-Christian values] Dennis Prager," as saying "It is difficult to imagine any other future scenario for western Europe than its becoming Islamicised or having a civil war."
The man's a genius.
*"St James Ethics Centre director Simon Longstaff was faced with an ethical dilemma of his own making yesterday. Longstaff has set up a forum for live debate called IQ2Oz to raise the level of public discourse on challenging issues. But Longstaff did his best to shut down debate yesterday when he discovered one of his participants, respected Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, had been invited by The Australian's opinion page editor Rebecca Weisser to submit for publication an extract of his address to a Quadrant dinner last night. Longstaff asked Pipes not to publish anything in The Australian before Thursday. When asked how this would foster debate and whether it was ethical behaviour, Longstaff asked for more time to think about it. After a couple of hours, he relented." (Strewth, The Australian, 15/4/08)
Daniel Pipes, I should explain, is director of Islamofabulism Forum and is in Australia for the Intelligence Insulted debate, sponsored by the Sydney Morning Herald and the St James Ethics Centre this very evening (15/4/08) in Sydney. So sought after is he that the SMH's cunning competitor, The Australian, actually mounted a pre-emptive coup, prevailing upon The Master to allow the publication of a talk he had delivered to assorted worshipful Quadranters at a Quadrant soiree the night before.*
Here are excerpts from The Master's message to the Quadrant faithful, published under the title: Europe or Eurabia? Peaceful integration is the least likely way Europe will cope with Islam. My exegesis follows each precious pearl of wisdumb.
"I foresee potentially one of 3 paths for Europe: Muslims dominating, Muslims rejected or harmonious integration."
In his discussion of the first - "Eurabia" - option, The Master quotes the very creme de la creme of Western scholeraship on Islam, the late Oriana (Ignorantissima) Fallaci (Europe as "a colony of Islam") and Mark Steyn-Gang (Europe will "disappear" this century). These two, along with The Master himself of course, constitute the very doyen of the Islamofabulist school of hysterical scholeraship. I should add that, in invoking them, the master was obviously mindful of Quadrant's requirement for the kind of intellectual rigor mortis so prized by the eminent scholeras who write for that 'steamed journal.
"The secularism that predominates in Europe, especially among its elites leads to alienation from the Judeo-Christian tradition, empty church pews and a fascination with Islam."
Precisely! What the Master means by this is that because our political and cultural movers & shakers are so pissed off with JC (Judeo-Christianity that is), they are therefore magnetically drawn, as it were, to Islam. The Master's failure to cite any evidence whatever for this profoundly counter-intuitive insight is deliberate. I should point out that what constitutes the bleeding obvious for him invariably has to be spelt out for lesser mortals. And that is what I am here for. The evidence is there for all to see. Just open your eyes. Are you aware for example that Blair, Sarkozy and Berlusconi, to name but three of Europe's political elite, have all converted to Islam? No? Typical! Blair, in the grip of his "fascination with Islam" has tossed in his job and left Londonistan for Hamastan on a Jihad Airways jet. Sarkozy has just fallen under the spell of that bewitching houri Khalida Baroudi, and Berlusconi has just re-emerged from a period of political Shia-style occultation and re-taken the Italian presidency, sporting (at least Oriana's unfortunate demise spared her this horror) new, black locks!
"Muslims display a religious fervour that translates into jihadi sensibility, a supremacism towards non-Muslims and an expectation that Europe is waiting for conversion to Islam."
The Master is telling us here that French Muslims, to take but one example, are in the process of losing the little Garlic sangfroid that might have rubbed off on them over their civilizing years in France and are willy nilly foaming at the mouth as their once latent inner jihadi terrorists, conjured up by the Terrorist Masters of 9/11, take over. They are, even as my trembling fingers type, roaming the effete streets of gay Paris with a superior air, knocking on the doors of its unsuspecting citizens and tempting the unfortunates within (who, if they'd only known what was coming, would've been out packing the pews!) by proposing a date with 72 virginal Khalida Baroudi look-alikes.
"The contrast in faith also has demographic implications, with Christians having on average 1.4 children a woman...and Muslims enjoying [wink, wink, nudge, nudge, you bet they're enjoying it, the randy buggers!] a dramatically higher...fertlity rate... Russia could become a Muslim-majority country in 2050."
This means that because a European woman only has 1.4 kids, the .4 kid is well, pretty much a dud and has to be discarded. But your randy Muslim, he's fairly pumpin' 'em out, know what I mean? None of this .4 nonsense or anything like that! And as for Russia, there's only one explanation for its "fascination," first with Afghanistan and now with Chechnya. As The Master has pointed out, it's that "fascination with Islam" which comes over any European whose bum is not firmly planted on a pew.
"To employ enough workers to fund existing pension plans, Europe needs millions of immigrants, and these tend to be disproportionately Muslim due to...the turmoil in majority-Muslim countries."
I hasten to point out here that The Master is not, repeat not, implying that said "turmoil" has anything whatever to do with those millions of Iraqi and Afghan refugees liberated from their countries by the his uncle, Sam.
"In addition, many Europeans no longer cherish their history, mores and customs. Guilt about fascism, racism and imperialism leaves many with a sense that their own culture has less value than that of immigrants."
Yes! Yes! The Master is spot on here. If only the real Europeans would cast aside that burdensome, self-hating (The Master calls it "self-disdain") "guilt" and once more return to their fascist, racist, imperialist roots! Unleash their inner Hitlers, Mussolinis and Francos! Cleanse Europe of the Muslim enemy within! And then, and then, take the fight to the Muslim hordes without!
And now for the second option: what might be termed the Reconquista option, or in terms most Australians can understand - Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi. Why dontcha go back where ya came from, Leb! "Indigenous Europeans could resist... they can at any time reassert control should they see Muslims posing a threat to a way of life. This impulse can be seen at work in the French anti-hijab legislation or in Geert Wilder's film, Fitna."
The Master is positively Churchillian, is he not? Can't you see his subtle call to arms? We shall fight them in the high schools! We shall fight them in the cinemas!
"Anti-immigrant parties gain in strength; a potential nativist movement is taking shape across Europe as political parties opposed to immigration focus increasingly on Islam and Muslims."
Now I know what you're thinking, but your wrong. The Master's wording is perhaps too subtle for you ignoramuses. The word he used was "nativist", not Nazi. The Master knows full well that the only Nazis in the world today are among the Muslim untermenschen. Just because "the British National Party, Belgium's Vlaamse Belang, France's National Front, the Austrian Freedom Party, the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands and the Danish People's Party" will (should they gain power) "reject multiculturalism, cut back on immigration, encourage repatriation of immigrants, support Christian insitutions, increase indigenous European birthrates and broadly attempt to re-establish traditional ways," does not mean that they are Nazi, merely "nativist."
The Master does, however, make clear that that's a most unlikely scenario. As our Israeli friends never tire of reminding us, the fascist virus has decamped from Europe to the Middle East where there are now more Hitlers than you can poke the proverbial stick at. The Europeans are now mere pussy cats, and The Master lets us in on this terrifying little secret: "If anyone is likely to initiate violence, it is the Muslims. They have already engaged in many acts of violence and seem to be spoiling for more."
The third, or "harmonious integration," option is just not on according to The Master. And here he quotes with approval yet another in his suite of impeccably authoritative (and versatile)scholeras, "American columnist [& radio talk show host & pro-war Republican spruiker of American exceptionalism and Judeo-Christian values] Dennis Prager," as saying "It is difficult to imagine any other future scenario for western Europe than its becoming Islamicised or having a civil war."
The man's a genius.
*"St James Ethics Centre director Simon Longstaff was faced with an ethical dilemma of his own making yesterday. Longstaff has set up a forum for live debate called IQ2Oz to raise the level of public discourse on challenging issues. But Longstaff did his best to shut down debate yesterday when he discovered one of his participants, respected Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, had been invited by The Australian's opinion page editor Rebecca Weisser to submit for publication an extract of his address to a Quadrant dinner last night. Longstaff asked Pipes not to publish anything in The Australian before Thursday. When asked how this would foster debate and whether it was ethical behaviour, Longstaff asked for more time to think about it. After a couple of hours, he relented." (Strewth, The Australian, 15/4/08)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)