John C. Wright (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} johncwright) wrote,@ 2009-07-09 13:19:00 |
|
Every storm begins with a single drop of rain
Several nations in Europe are cowed by the threats and menace of the paynim, and are even now dhimmi in everything but name; Canada likewise, as the Mark Steyn case indicates. Radio talkshow hosts and Dutch PM's are barred from Great Britain. Statues of pigs and dogs are removed. The Muslims control who may enter the country, and what may be published or discussed in public. There have been small outbreaks of dhimmitude in America, but they are growing larger.
You see, it is as predictable as anything in this unpredictable world can be: Western culture may be devoted to religious freedom, but the counterculture (who now rule us) is devoted to freedom from Christianity, and tolerates only inoffensive and non-demanding beliefs, New Age blither, or theosophic or bogus versions of Oriental religions we might call McBuddhism. The hostility of the counterculture toward Christianity has become more open in recent years, but they have never pretended anything but contempt for the opiate of the masses.
Since the Mohammedans also wish to reduce the Christians to death or dhimmitude, they are the natural allies of the counterculture--despite that sexual liberated potheads, perverts, orgiasts, adulterers, panderers and pornographers (all the folk the Larry Flint generation calls heroes) are the first to be buried up the waist and pelted to death with stones under Sharia law. A chaste and temperate Christian or Jew runs afoul of no commandment of the Prophet, if he pay his dhimmi tax. In other words, the barbarians within the gates are the natural allies of the barbarians without the gates, before the gates are opened. And after?
I recall reading -- I cannot find the quote at the moment -- the account of a Christian lady from Lebannon, who before 1967, watched her parents and their friends urging the government to relax certain restrictions against Muslims in the name of social justice (only Maronitescould serve as commander or the army, for example, or head of the central bank), and once the Muslims had enough power and confidence, thanks in part to their help, these same compassionate reformers were killed like dogs in the street, their bodies left unburied for the crows, because one infidel is no different from the next.
But that is the end of the process. Here is one more story from near the beginning. I make no pretense of vouching for it, aside from saying that I am not surprised. You may read and decide for yourself.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/07/s
David Wood says Christians were singled out for legal and illegal harassment at a public festival in Dearborn, Mich. He sums up:
I am curious to hear from anyone on the Leftward side of the political spectrum what your plan is, what policy you suggest the West embrace, to deal with an implacable enemy?
Do you believe there is a peaceful means to reduce their threat? Do you think giving the Jihadists money, or power, or apologies, or giving them Isreal will placate them?
If that is the your belief, what is the basis for this belief? On what facts is it founded?
How would you defend this belief from a skeptic?
(Aside from an ad hominem attack, I mean. I am refering to a convincing defense, a defense on the merits, not a witticism mocking the intelligence or moral rectitude of the skeptic himself. Among grown-ups, discussions concern the subject matter of the discussion, and are therefore not merely background noise to a word-game of moral preening.)
Several nations in Europe are cowed by the threats and menace of the paynim, and are even now dhimmi in everything but name; Canada likewise, as the Mark Steyn case indicates. Radio talkshow hosts and Dutch PM's are barred from Great Britain. Statues of pigs and dogs are removed. The Muslims control who may enter the country, and what may be published or discussed in public. There have been small outbreaks of dhimmitude in America, but they are growing larger.
You see, it is as predictable as anything in this unpredictable world can be: Western culture may be devoted to religious freedom, but the counterculture (who now rule us) is devoted to freedom from Christianity, and tolerates only inoffensive and non-demanding beliefs, New Age blither, or theosophic or bogus versions of Oriental religions we might call McBuddhism. The hostility of the counterculture toward Christianity has become more open in recent years, but they have never pretended anything but contempt for the opiate of the masses.
Since the Mohammedans also wish to reduce the Christians to death or dhimmitude, they are the natural allies of the counterculture--despite that sexual liberated potheads, perverts, orgiasts, adulterers, panderers and pornographers (all the folk the Larry Flint generation calls heroes) are the first to be buried up the waist and pelted to death with stones under Sharia law. A chaste and temperate Christian or Jew runs afoul of no commandment of the Prophet, if he pay his dhimmi tax. In other words, the barbarians within the gates are the natural allies of the barbarians without the gates, before the gates are opened. And after?
I recall reading -- I cannot find the quote at the moment -- the account of a Christian lady from Lebannon, who before 1967, watched her parents and their friends urging the government to relax certain restrictions against Muslims in the name of social justice (only Maronitescould serve as commander or the army, for example, or head of the central bank), and once the Muslims had enough power and confidence, thanks in part to their help, these same compassionate reformers were killed like dogs in the street, their bodies left unburied for the crows, because one infidel is no different from the next.
But that is the end of the process. Here is one more story from near the beginning. I make no pretense of vouching for it, aside from saying that I am not surprised. You may read and decide for yourself.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/07/s
David Wood says Christians were singled out for legal and illegal harassment at a public festival in Dearborn, Mich. He sums up:
We insisted on our Constitutional rights to (i) ask a question at a booth, and (ii) record in a public place. This was enough to get us banned from a public sidewalk in Dearborn, Michigan (the city with the highest percentage of Muslims in the U.S.). By comparison, the Muslim security guards openly harassed, intimidated, bullied, threatened, entrapped, and assaulted Christians; they openly proclaimed that they don’t care about our rights as American citizens; they used profanity as they insulted us; they lied to police. This behavior was perfectly welcome in Dearborn, even at a family festival! (There were other examples of open hatred as well.)
I have contacted the Arab Chamber of Commerce (the organization responsible for planning the festival, selecting the security team, and deciding that Christians are no longer free to distribute information in public places). I have asked for an apology and for their thoughts on how such horrendous treatment of Christians will be avoided in the future. They have not responded.
Going back to the time of Muhammad, whenever the population of Muslims becomes significant, followers of other religions are suppressed, and the proclamation of non-Muslim beliefs is forb
I have contacted the Arab Chamber of Commerce (the organization responsible for planning the festival, selecting the security team, and deciding that Christians are no longer free to distribute information in public places). I have asked for an apology and for their thoughts on how such horrendous treatment of Christians will be avoided in the future. They have not responded.
Going back to the time of Muhammad, whenever the population of Muslims becomes significant, followers of other religions are suppressed, and the proclamation of non-Muslim beliefs is forb
I am curious to hear from anyone on the Leftward side of the political spectrum what your plan is, what policy you suggest the West embrace, to deal with an implacable enemy?
Do you believe there is a peaceful means to reduce their threat? Do you think giving the Jihadists money, or power, or apologies, or giving them Isreal will placate them?
If that is the your belief, what is the basis for this belief? On what facts is it founded?
How would you defend this belief from a skeptic?
(Aside from an ad hominem attack, I mean. I am refering to a convincing defense, a defense on the merits, not a witticism mocking the intelligence or moral rectitude of the skeptic himself. Among grown-ups, discussions concern the subject matter of the discussion, and are therefore not merely background noise to a word-game of moral preening.)
