Many years ago, I wrote a short story about the fading of the rational world, and its replacement with the mystical. It wasn’t very well written, and to some extent I still think I am lousy at writing fiction. But the premise was a fascinating one. I would like to revisit it someday.
Anyway, the concept was that, long after a nuclear war, knowledge of the rational world was failing, becoming piecemeal and quasi-mystical. And that the universe itself bent to this notion, that humanity’s collective experience was sufficient to change the natural laws of the universe. In simple terms, the Earth was becoming a magical place. The protagonists were on a mission to find the nearly-completed spacecraft from a pre-war colonization project.
They leave just in time, escaping a fantastical Earth into the “rational” universe. When their descendants return to Earth, generations later, they find no evidence humans had ever been there at all. The two worlds — the fantastical and the rational — had split off and become inaccessible to one another. It was a play on the nature of subjectivity versus objectivity, of Free Will and Fatalism.
In any event, the recent terror attacks reminded me of this old story, and a fundamental problem at the core of how we view Islam, terror, and the war we are fighting against both. This is a war in which you have already been drafted. The enemy always gets a vote…
People say “not all Muslims” and “Islam is a religion of peace.” They prattle on about the peaceful, moderate Muslims. They will tell you of Muslim friends, or Muslim coworkers, and how great they are. The fact is, they aren’t wrong. Such Muslims exist, presumably in large numbers, even. On the other side, we discuss how terror attacks are, almost invariably, perpetrated by Muslims. The question is not if another Muslim terror attack will happen, it is merely when, and how many bodies will be produced. We talk about history, how violent Jihad destroyed the old Roman world, how Islam has perpetually had bloody borders and genocidal madmen at the fore. The fact is, this is true too.
You see, the problem isn’t the deity. The problem is the priests.
Theoretically, Allah is one and the same with the God of Moses and the father of Jesus Christ. Oh, certainly there are differences (the divinity of Christ being a big one). But still, we are supposedly worshiping the same entity, right? Why, then, all the hate between the intellectual descendants of Abraham? For one, Mohammed as illustrated in the Quran and, more appropriately, the Hadiths, was a violent, megalomaniac of a warlord.
Robert Spencer, of course, wonders if a warlord named Mohammed even existed in the first place. The Hadiths are not attested before the beginning of the eighth century. The Quran only partially so, and with clear transcription errors. We cannot know with certainty who Mohammed was, what he did, or if anything written about him is true at all. In simple terms, the leaders of the Islamic world could have fabricated him out of whole cloth, or twisted him to fit an agenda of their own making. We wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.
Regardless of the existence or non-existence of Mohammed himself, the word of his priests, the religious leaders of Islam, is clear: conquest and subjugation in the name of Islam. This is not a religion of peace, as is assumed, but a religion of submission — the denial of the Thomist notion of Free Will.
Perhaps, if they chose to, the priesthood of Islam, such that it is, could interpret it differently. But it steadfastly refuses to do so. And when one or another rogue reformer in the Islamic world suggests they ought to (see the Bahais and the Ahmadis) the rest of Islam tries to murder them.
The problem isn’t the people. The problem is the priests.
Imagine if nearly every Christian churchman was an intellectual disciple of the Westboro Baptists. That’s the reality of the Islamic world. Whether or not the man herding goats in the Sudan is our enemy is irrelevant. He has no power. His opinion of us is meaningless. Moderate Islam, such that exists, has no voice, no power.
And in the Muslim world, like the fantastical setting of my short story, subjective experience is reality. When a warrior loses a battle, he thinks his loss is punishment. He was insufficiently devout. He must dedicate himself more to Allah, such that next time God will grant that his bullets fly true and smite the unbelievers. So the imam comes, and tells him to follow the example of Islam set forth in the Hadiths. Then the Great Satan will be beaten.
The Thomist notion of God, that of a being who set the universe into motion, willed it into being, and then left it to unfold, is completely foreign to Islam. There is no Free Will in Islam, save for the choice to submit or die.
Such peaceful, moderate Muslims that exist are Muslims who, like many Christians, are not particularly devout. They do not think about the Quran constantly, or follow the example of Mohammed in the Hadiths. But there is guilt for this, just as there is guilt for the Catholic who rarely attends mass, or the Jew who becomes a secularist. So, on occasion, a previously “moderate” Muslim will find his calling in the exhortations of a radical imam, telling him that he must be more Muslim.
The problem isn’t the prophet. The problem is the priests.
The war between Islam and everybody else predates the founding of the religion. It predates Christianity, Rome, and probably all of written history. The conflict is an ancient one, rooted in the battle between the Fatalists and those who believe in Free Will. It is Freedom against Slavery. Sovereignty versus Submission. Islam clothed itself in the uniform of the Fatalists. It was not the first to do so, and certainly not the last (Marxists wear the uniform, likewise).
From this, you can understand the underpinnings which bind the Social Justice Warriors and Militant Marxists with the Radical Islamists: all believe history has already been written. Everything is predetermined, and everything is predicated on devotion to the cause. The priests, of course, determine precisely what devotion means. They virtue signal, they “educate” their followers on what Allah — or the historical dialectic — desires of them, that they might find Paradise.
In the West, we have a priesthood, also. But this isn’t a priesthood who answers the call of Christ. The priesthood of Marx can be found in the media talking heads, in the ivory towers of academia. Remember, insufficient devotion to Marxism is cause for expulsion. You are a heretic. Or, if you are a right-wing Christian, you are an infidel. Like in Islam, it is permissible to do whatever they want to you.
The problem isn’t bigotry. The problem is the media.
Behind all of this, the Marxists and the Islamists both believe in a sort of subjective utopia, that their devotion is alone sufficient to change the world, to bend reality itself, to change the very laws of the universe. The Muslim fighter believes that Allah will bend the bullet’s path, and smite the infidel. The Social Justice Warrior believes that humanity contains an infinite number of genders, but that race doesn’t exist (it’s a social construct). The Dialectic shall change the very biological nature of mankind himself.
Neitzsche’s ubermensch was really just a fat genderqueer lesbian wolfkin with a cornucopia of mental illnesses. The worst mass murderers in ISIS-controlled Syria are paragons of devotion to Allah, model citizens of the new Caliphate. Both are freedom fighters against the terrifyingly bigoted Christian oppressors of the world.
The problem isn’t Free Will. The problem is Fatalism.
If Free Will doesn’t exist, then there is no point to anything. That is the path to Nihilism, the path to genocide, the path to every ill which humanity has ever conceived of. For, in the end, Fatalism tells you that nothing is really your fault. You have no will. You are a victim of history, a soldier of Allah, a vessel for another power that is not-you. And not-you did the thing.
It is the shifting of blame away from self, it is the destruction of self, the annihilation of purpose. And then, once this terrifying self-destruction has taken place, the priesthood of your Fatalistic belief system of choice will remake you in their chosen image. (How can you have chosen Allah or Marx if you have no Free Will? Answer that one SJWs).
The priests make of you what they will. You are now a vessel for someone else’s beliefs, a tool wiped clean for another’s purpose, a purpose that is not your own. The priest sleeps well at night saying to himself “I didn’t kill anybody, my slave did.” And the slave sleeps well at night thinking “I didn’t kill anybody, I followed my master’s orders.” Yet the killing happened.
That is how the person saying “not all Muslims” and the person saying “Islam is the problem” can be simultaneously correct. Everybody involved thinks there is no choice. The SJW thinks terrorism is just something that happens, like a natural disaster, an act of a God they don’t believe exists. Then they will light a candle and pray to a deity they don’t believe exists either. Hearts will be chalked onto sidewalks, messages of love and peace displayed in empty ritual, as if, like in my story, the very thought will somehow change the fabric of the universe. At least the Christian believes there is probably a God at the other end of the line. The SJW believes nothing exists, yet conducts the ritual anyway, filling some deep-seated human need.
This, in a world without choice, where oppressor and victim are preordained, where original sin is heaped upon a white baby, because somebody who looked vaguely similar once did something evil. But the chosen of God, or Marx, or whatever… they are free of sin. Paradise is for them.
Just as, half a world away, Muslims will cheer the deaths of infidels and those they see as sexual deviants. It will be seen, as with all such things, as the divine wrath of Allah. The terrorist was merely the vessel through which Allah’s will was carried to the Great Satan. The chickens come home to roost. Paradise is coming. The Caliphate will be real, merely because they think it so.
In the world of Fatalism, the problem is always the priests.
Of course, whether or not the priests believe their own material is another topic altogether.
Very clever post.
nope.
actually the problem is the deity.
allah is the greatest deceiver.
koran 3:54, 7:95, 8:3, etc claim allah is the best deceiver.
the christian world know who the greatest deceiver is.
Islam appears to be of two minds on this… it is confused and contradictory. See the Satanic verses…
Hi, me again.
“The SJW thinks terrorism is just something that happens, like a natural disaster, an act of a God they don’t believe exists.”
I think you’d classify me as an SJW, and I don’t think terrorism is just something that happens: I think it’s a political act.
“Such peaceful, moderate Muslims that exist are Muslims who, like many Christians, are not particularly devout.”
I take issue with this as well, since I’ve worked with a fairly large number of Muslims who were both devout and moderate.
Such Muslims, of course, form the bulk of the victims of the militant assholes who like killing anybody who doesn’t live up to their half-baked ideology.
“I think you’d classify me as an SJW, and I don’t think terrorism is just something that happens: I think it’s a political act.”
You are not an SJW. Irritatingly obstinate at times, perhaps, but an SJW would have long ago denounced me as a hateful bigot and moved on. You have not.
“I take issue with this as well, since I’ve worked with a fairly large number of Muslims who were both devout and moderate.”
Define a “fairly large number.” Do so while exempting the Ahmadis and Bahais, who I specifically indicated were not like other Islamic groups.
“Such Muslims, of course, form the bulk of the victims of the militant assholes who like killing anybody who doesn’t live up to their half-baked ideology.”
The greatest victims of Islam are other Muslims. I partially agree with this.
If we’re defining it tightly, I would include around 70 specific individuals that I worked directly with on a day to day basis in 9 separate countries. Personally I would also include the majority of other employees in the organisations that I was working for, which would raise the numbers into the thousands. However I suppose it depends what you mean by “devout” and “moderate”?
Difficult to tightly define devout vs. moderate, since they exist on a continuum. However, the way I look at it is based on whether or not the individual in question believes in the application of Sharia law.
For instance, Quran 4:89 states: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”
This is effectively the punishment of death for apostasy from Islam. A Muslim who believes in this is not, in my opinion, a moderate.
Such Muslims that I know who are moderate are very secular minded. Ironically, most of those sorts that I know personally are originally from Iran — their families fled the Islamist regime there.
I generally think that taking a single verse from a Sura out of context is a bad idea, since I’m sure you’re aware that there are differing interpretations of that verse in context. It seems strange that you would reduce everything to such a black-and-white dichotomy, considering that’s exactly the approach that these militant groups take.
The Quran, admittedly, has a very dualistic nature with regard to this. In some cases, it supports other religions, in other cases, it suggests killing them is good, even necessary. In some cases, the interpretations support the killing of the apostate, in others they do not.
But as you know, the Hadiths carry equal, if not greater weight in this regard. And there is a Hadith which states that one who changes his religion from Islam should be killed. The attestations for this Hadith are weaker than some… yet it is commonly cited anyway.
And those who do not cite it, or who question its attestation, do not necessarily prohibit the killing of the apostate. They consider the matter “unsettled.” Thus the moderate is weakly opposed to the killing of the apostate, and the radical is strongly in favor of it. Advantage: kill the apostates.
Tom Kratman once asked on this blog which major branch of Islamic jurisprudence strictly prohibits the killing of gays. I ask the same question.
It’s worth noting that I consider ALL Hadiths as weakly attested, but that’s probably a conversation for another time. After all, it’s not my belief of their authenticity which is in question — it is theirs.
The Koran is not at all dualistic on religious tolerance; under the doctrine of naskh? (abrogation), the later, Medinan verses supersede and nullify any earlier, Meccan verses they contradict. Care to guess which ones are tolerant and which ones are militaristic and implacable?
In seventh-century Arabia, apparently warlordism was more effective than a message of peace…
Mr Porretto’s reading of “naskh” is inaccurate and misleading.
You will have to explain yourself here. From my studies on the subject, Francis appears to be correct.
I’m interested to know the resources which you have studied?
A very long list… I’d have to really sit down and think about it to collect this for you.
As you may have guessed, I have studied Byzantine history for most of my life (since I was a small boy). It is impossible to understand Byzantium without also studying Islamic history.
Most of the secondary sources vary from an attempt at neutrality to being critical of Islam.
I have read much of the Quran, also. But I have not completed my reading of it — it is plodding, duplicative, contradictory, and in some cases it makes no sense whatsoever. It is a VERY difficult read.
I have followed and read certain Hadiths, both independently and through secondary sources.
I also regularly follow debates between the Abrahamic faiths. Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc…
I really don’t know where to start with an exhaustive list. But one author who certainly agrees with Francis on this matter would be Robert Spencer. Perhaps that is a good place for you to start if you are interested in a critical analysis?
Don’t worry about a complete list – I was asking on what you base your interpretation of “naskh” specifically.
More specifically, the sources you have that argue that “the later, Medinan verses supersede and nullify any earlier, Meccan verses they contradict” always and across all Islamic schools of thought.
Then yes, Merkur, the works of Robert Spencer are as good a place as any to start. He has written several books on the subject. A cursory Amazon search will provide you with them.
Although it is mentioned, also, in many other works as well.
I was hoping that you could point me to sources from *within* Islamic schools of thought, since these are probably a better guide to what Muslims actually think. Can you recommend any such primary sources?
You first. You stated Francis was wrong without any corresponding references. Do you have any?
I was being provocative in the hope of eliciting a response. The burden of proof remains on the person making the original claim, right?
Perhaps. But as I am not the man making the original claim, I ask again what evidence you have for YOUR assertion that he is wrong.
Ufff, I’d really have to go back to the books for that one. As I recall, the issue of abrogation is quite widely contested in Muslim philosophy, without a single defining view accepted across all the different streams and sects. It’s not something on which there is a wide range of Western scholarship, I think, because it’s primarily a theological argument. My point about Mr Porrettos’ reading was that it presents a radically simplified view that mischaracterises the way in which abrogation is applied in practice.
So a) your definition of “moderate” is “whether or not the individual in question believes in the application of Sharia law”, and b) if they do believe in the application of Sharia law, they are not moderate?
If they do believe it, then not moderate. But if they don’t believe it, the possibility exists that whatever they believe is worse and/or less secular than Sharia, in which case not moderate.
Moderate would be either “I don’t care” or “Secular law supersedes Islamic jurisprudence.”
Just as it would be with Christians, by the way — I’m fair minded in this. Most Christians in America would not apply Biblical law over the secular regime. There are some who would (Westboro Baptists famously come to mind), but I categorize them similarly to radical Muslims, excepting that so far, most of them haven’t killed anybody, and there are very few of them. Thus they are more of a nuisance than a real terror threat.
There was a study done on this some time ago… I think it was Pew that did it. I will see if I can find it for you. But the point was something slightly greater than 50% of Muslims were in favor of strict Sharia law.
So your full definition of “moderate” is whether or not the individual in question believes in the application of Sharia law *above* secular law?
You’re getting a little too hung up on the definition. Elevation of Sharia law over secular law disqualifies one as a moderate. But it is not the only thing that may do so. If one, for instance, advocates the killing of apostates, or the killing of homosexuals, that too disqualifies one as a moderate — regardless of where they stand on other matters that may relate to Sharia law. I think you understand me here. It is violence and/or conquest in the name of Islam that most worries me. If they do it, not a moderate. If they support it, excuse it, or provide material support to those who do, not a moderate. This goes for violent terrorists, for nuts like ISIS, but also for the imams preaching “have as many babies as you can and outbreed the infidels in their own countries!” It goes for those who support them, also (which is a much larger number than the actual perpetrators). Those who beat their wives, conduct honor killings, etc… also not moderate.
I don’t, on the other hand, care if a Muslim practices his dietary restrictions. Indeed, I was raised in the Seventh Day Adventist church, and they follow Jewish dietary laws likewise. I don’t even care if they voluntarily practice their restrictions on clothing. So I’m not talking about the minor stuff. Does that make sense?
Yes, it makes sense. The definition is important, isn’t it? Otherwise people will tend to misunderstand each other, which seems to happen a lot online.
I now understand your core concern is violence or conquest in the name of Islam, which you associate with a range of attitudes. You apply the same criteria to Christians, which is fair.
I assume that your particular focus on Islamic militants is the result of their repeated attacks on foreign countries in an effort to change those countries’ policies to their preference, i.e. Sharia?
Not only that, but the historical context in which those attacks occur. The Islamic world and the West have been in direct conflict since the first Muslim armies appeared in the Levant in the 630s. At a macro level, my goal is the preservation of the West. That is most obviously incompatible with Muslims engaged in violent Jihad, conquest, killing, or support of such things. That is my primary and immediate concern, yes. But it must also been seen in a meta context.
Where good and righteous Muslims exist, I am not their enemy. There was an Ahmadi Muslim shopkeeper in Britain who was murdered by extremists after writing a positive message to his Christian customers on Easter. Very sad. So we fail even those good and peaceful Muslims come to us, too. Which goes back to my central point: the violence cannot be tolerated, and there is too much of it (and too much support for it) in the Muslim world. When support for it comes down to levels similar to Western Christians, then I am happy to revisit.
Until then… the West can do no good for anybody if it allows itself to be destroyed by Islam, Marxism, or some combination thereof.
“At a macro level, my goal is the preservation of the West.”
We’ve spoken before about how you define the West, so that’s clear to me now. What does interest me is: what is it about the West that you want to preserve? I have my own answer of course, but I’m interested to hear yours.
“When support for it comes down to levels similar to Western Christians, then I am happy to revisit.”
A 2011 Gallup Poll found that 58% of US Christians (Protestant/Catholic) believed that it was sometimes justified to target and kill civilians. The same poll found that only 21% of US Muslims believed that it was sometimes justified to target and kill civilians.
I don’t suggest that this one poll should cause you to change your mind about Muslims, since it doesn’t include Muslims outside the US. I’m wondering, though, if it should cause you to change your mind about Western Christians?
We discussed this one before. There is something wrong with it — because it does not jive with reality. Perhaps the poll is simply wrong. Or, as I suspect is more likely, the poll indicates something else entirely. The reason I think this way is that I don’t see suicidal radical Christian terrorists swearing allegiance to radical Christian organizations, then committing mass murder. I don’t see them committing suicide bombings, or attempting to establish enclaves of religious extremism like ISIS in Syria. Where radical Christians exist, like the Westboro Baptists, the numbers are exceedingly small (I don’t think the Westboro Baptists boasts more than 50 members). No major branch of Christian theology or jurisprudence justifies this sort of activity. Most explicitly condemn it.
What I suspect the poll fails to account for, given the way the questions are worded, is how America is viewed in the Muslim world. In the Muslim world, America is viewed as the evil empire. America is viewed as the killer of civilians and such. Israel, similarly receives this treatment, also. Whether or not that view is justified is a separate and much longer debate, I think. But as it relates to the poll… what I suspect you’re seeing is a Muslim view of America and Israel as the killers of Muslim civilians. And, naturally, they don’t like or desire this. So they deny it.
Whereas a Westerner, asked the same question, is likely to look back upon Western experience to answer the question. In World War II, for instance, the doctrine was one of Total War, wherein the war had become so terrible, where the engine of war had grown to encompass the entirety of the country, that it was no longer possible to functionally distinguish your targets such that you could avoid civilian casualties. A Westerner would tell you that circumstances exist where this is unavoidable. In other words, circumstances exist where it was justified (the atomic bombings of Japan are instructive here).
The difference between the two is that in the Western world, this is viewed as a last resort. Total War only reaches a point of moral justification when all other options have been exhausted. Whereas in the Muslim world, attacks against civilian targets are frequent, and often exercised first, and not for the industrial purposes of such bombings in World War II, but rather for express psychological and sociological warfare.
Put simply, you would have to push a modern Western country VERY far for it to consider civilian casualties morally justifiable to any great degree, whereas this is of the first tactic utilized in the Muslim world. So the poll likely reflects a core cultural difference, as opposed to a directly-comparable expression of views on this sort of violence.
To put it simply, in the Western world, civilian casualties are NOT the objective. When they happen (and they do), it is because of accident, or because they were near a target of military importance, or because Total War was being exercised. Whereas in the Muslim world, the civilians ARE the target. Does that make sense?
“There is something wrong with it — because it does not jive with reality. Perhaps the poll is simply wrong.”
You’re right – we should always interrogate statistics. What I find interesting is that your interrogation only goes in one direction. You push back against the poll I present you, but you hold tight to the poll that appears to support your view – despite the fact that it is equally widely worded.
“In the Muslim world, America is viewed as the evil empire… what I suspect you’re seeing is a Muslim view of America and Israel as the killers of Muslim civilians. And, naturally, they don’t like or desire this. So they deny it.”
Even this was true, what does that prove? They don’t agree with killing civilians. That was your original point. It doesn’t matter why they don’t agree with killing civilians. You made a statement, and the original poll suggests that statement was inaccurate.
On top of that, your generalisation of the “Muslim view of America” is also inaccurate: “such sentiment has actually ebbed among Muslims in the Palestinian territories and Pakistan. And in both Indonesia and Nigeria, countries with some of the largest Muslim populations in the world, strong majorities voice a favorable view of the United States. In fact, their pro-American sentiment is stronger than that in Germany.” (https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/15/do-muslims-around-the-world-really-hate-the-united-states/)
“A Westerner would tell you that circumstances exist where this is unavoidable. In other words, circumstances exist where it was justified (the atomic bombings of Japan are instructive here).”
I’m a Westerner. Circumstances do exist where civilian casualties are unavoidable – and I don’t believe that the bombing of Japan doesn’t fit that category – but that doesn’t make it justified. What it means is that you have to swallow the moral and legal implications, no matter how bitter they might taste.
To put it simply, in the Western world, civilian casualties are NOT the objective. When they happen (and they do), it is because of accident, or because they were near a target of military importance, or because Total War was being exercised. Whereas in the Muslim world, the civilians ARE the target. Does that make sense?
It doesn’t make much sense to me, I’m afraid. We start from very different assumptions and get even further apart.
For example, unlike you I don’t believe in moral relativism. Civilian casualties are unacceptable no matter who causes them or why. “Total War” is not a justification from either a moral or legal perspective. Being “near a target of military importance” is similarly not a justification. “Accident” is a reasonable justification, but it’s been used far too often as cover for butchery.
Another example: I tend to think that recent history is a more useful guide than medieval history. In recent history, the UK targeted civilians in Iraq in the 1920s, the Germans targeted civilians in Europe in the 1940s, the US targeted civilians in Korea in the early 1950s, the French targeted civilians in Algeria in the late 1950s.
My point is not that armies from Muslim countries, or armed militia claiming Islamic faith, do not target civilians. My point is that it is only recently that the norm of not targeting civilians became recognised only recently, and the Geneva Conventions and Protocol 1 were adopted primarily in response to the atrocities that marked the Second World War and the colonial wars that followed.
I don’t believe that military forces “in the Western world” deliberately target civilians now. I tend to agree with Downes, however, that this is because the overwhelming firepower available to the West (and particularly the US) means that they never have to face this quandary. It’s not because of a “core cultural difference”, as the polls consistently demonstrate.
For example there: you say that “you would have to push a modern Western country VERY far for it to consider civilian casualties morally justifiable to any great degree” – but once again, polls suggest otherwise: “Americans are the most likely population in the world (49%) to believe military attacks targeting civilians is sometimes justified”. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx)
Finally: you say that “in the Muslim world, the civilians ARE the target”. I’m not sure how you can prove this; it seems ludicrous on the face of it. I’ve worked with armies from Muslim countries, and they no more target civilians than any other military I’ve worked with. If they kill civilians, it’s for exactly the same reasons that you claim justify civilian casualties.
Islamic militant groups clearly target civilians as part of their strategy of asymmetric warfare. In some cases, I can understand the reasoning, just as I can understand the reasoning behind total war, without agreeing with it; I condemn absolutely the likes of ISIS, however. What I don’t accept is that this is some Muslim characteristic, especially when it is Muslims who are the main victims.
Excellent article. I will share this via Twitter. Max.
I stumbled across your blog and am very refreshed to see another blogger writing about very similar topics as myself in regards to Western civilization and the challenges it’s currently facing. First of all, thank you for contributing to a discussion that I feel more Westerners need to be having out in the open, and more honestly with themselves more importantly.
It is absolutely the priests, not the deity. It seems Islam never overcame this, even after centuries of relatively uninterrupted existence until the World Wars came about into being. Christianity was fortunate to do so, because it was done from within. The whole civilized world watches every day wishing Muslims would just stand up to their priests and leaders already and tell them enough is enough, even it means certain death. That’s the true battle they should waging in honor of God anyways, just as the Christians had done throughout the progression of the middle ages.
I think its interesting that the secular world owes much to Christianity, because it was a sect of Judaism that branched away due to how the Jews failed at transcending its own priests. To this day, its adherents’ inability to find a place of rest (Israel was in fact not the original place in mind, but was actually France if I’m not mistaken) contributes to the overall dilemma we find ourselves in today. This lack of a home for its adherents is historically due to the cultish jurisprudence of its priests against others who don’t find their infatuation with an unnatural, not-so-secular one worldly order desirable nor realistically viable. Therefore in a way, Christianity really was a clever approach to sort of fulfill this flaw of an otherwise well-intended religion. Ever since, the Jews have been short on finding a place to call home and their vision of a messianic age in which they were promised by their priesthood.
Which of course led to Marxism, which really is just an impatient form of Judaism that has given up on faith in the promised messianic age in favor of forcefully creating one themselves at the expense of the cultural and national identities of the rest of the world. In order to achieve this however, requires pitting Islam against Christianity in a race to the demise of both so the world can finally bow down and embrace their desired promised land. But this methodology is to spit in the face of the deity, the God of Nature and Its gift of Free Will. Which I have a feeling will ultimately lend to the demise of the movement since nature cannot be cultivated by men without aligning with its realities.
In the meantime, I do hope that one day Muslims will rise up and say “No more!” and throw out the priests in order to transcend the corruptible dogma of men just as Christianity had done. Until then, I agree that it’s perfectly rational to discount Islam as a “religion of peace”. It has only been relatively peaceful in instances where it is the minority. When it begins to grow as a majority, the calling begins to kick in and leaves us facing the mess that we have today. It was literally founded upon war, unlike Christianity which was a reformed version of Judaism that led to a better harmonization with the secular, natural world.
It really is unfortunate Muslims are just as much victims of this situation as the rest of the world’s populace. But nobody can save them from themselves, but themselves. Until then, America would be wise to take common sense measures to protect its sovereignty so as to avoid the internal destruction that Europe is presently experiencing. The Western world and heritage is counting on it.
Great article. I’ll be subscribing and visiting again.
“Marxism… is just an impatient form of Judaism”
That’s very interesting. What are the points that Judaism and Marxism have in common?
A more in-depth analysis of the relation between Judaism and Marxism can be found at the link below if you’re interested. It takes a historical approach to viewing the matter, not to be confused with racial/antisemitic views on the matter that some groups hold.
http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/10/the-religious-origins-of-globalism/
That interview is not an in-depth analysis of the relation between Judaism and Marxism. The only reference it makes is a quote from George Steiner, a quote which occupies a single paragraph in one of Steiner’s essays. Perhaps you could explain – in your own words – what points you think Marxism and Judaism have in common?
Sure, but just a brief snapshot of what I’ve come to perceive.
Throughout the middle ages, the Jewish people migrated from nation to nation. They continuously migrated due to their elite’s dubious banking systems, which kings allowed within their kingdoms. Perhaps to capitalize on their systems of finance, or even capitalize on the idea that God might actually grant them their promised land and that it might be their kingdom that gets blessed as such. However this never happened, and when the people grew tired and strung out from such methods, they demanded kings to banish them, leading to more migration.
Considering how most of the original Marxist/Leftists were themselves Jewish, it seems they became increasingly secular yet never gave up on the idea of a promised land. Therefore it seems obvious they either consciously or subconsciously determined they would influence the world and coerce peoples toward their vision. If they couldn’t be granted a false promise of a place to call home, they must’ve figured they can just take matters into their own hands and create a one world order in which they could call the entire planet theirs. It seems clear to me that Israel never did truly satisfy their elites, as they continued to push for creating a one world order of sorts.
I could go into more detail but lack the time. These are just a few correlations I can think of off the top of my head. Judaism never got their promised land and tended toward Marxist theory in a way of wanting to make the whole world theirs in a way. Whereas Islam was founded upon war as they felt denied by God for a promised land of their own, seemingly leaving them to want to make the world theirs by sheer conquest. It’s only the Christian religion that has accepted the world as it is, leading to the enjoyment of true, natural, secularism.
Keith, thanks for continuing the discussion, but I have to push back a bit. You haven’t identified a single point of overlap between Judaism and Marxism. You’ve just told a fairy story about Jews, glossing the historical record and avoiding difficult questions by saying things like “Therefore it seems obvious they either consciously or subconsciously determined they would influence the world and coerce peoples toward their vision.” It’s not obvious at all. So I’ll ask once more, if I may: where do you see overlaps between the religious practice of Judaism and the political ideology of Marxism?
My name is Kevin, but no big deal. As far as “fairy story about Jews” – I wish I could make this stuff up. However I’m no novelist, play write, etc. and am just an amateur observer of history and Western civilization in particular.
Judaism seeks a promised land where the Jews are no longer persecuted and can live peaceably amongst all peoples. But according to Talmudic tradition (again, blame the priests not the deity or its adherents) the only way to do this is to hold others under Jewish law. Note this is different from Roman or English laws in which Western civilization developed under, so this would be to deny people their natural affinity for their cultural heritages.
Marxism seeks to unite the world where there are no more religions, cultural traditions, etc. In order to do this, there would have to be enforcement of some type of law that would inherently deny the natural rights of people to observe the laws developed of their homeland or cultural origin.
Both Judaism and Marxism expects people to deny their biological and evolutionary history in favor of a future that doesn’t yet exist (nor can exist since both go against human nature). Meanwhile the elite and/or priests allow themselves the privilege of continuing to observe their cultural roots and traditions (safe in their ivory towers of course) thus proving the hypocrisy of such notions.
Kevin, I apologise for getting your name wrong. No excuse, I was just typing too fast.
So… this doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. You’ve just described Judaism and Marxism – I think both inaccurately, but that’s another issue – but there’s nothing linking those two descriptions together. They’re so different, in fact, that it’s as if you’re arguing against your original point that “Marxism… is just an impatient form of Judaism”.
Sorry, that was a bit brusque, wasn’t it? Let me explain. According to you, “Judaism seeks a promised land where the Jews are no longer persecuted and can live peaceably amongst all peoples… under Jewish law” while “Marxism seeks to unite the world where there are no more religions, cultural traditions, etc.”
So: Judaism wants a promised land for Jews; Marxism wants to unite the world. That doesn’t seem impatient – that seems like the slowest way possible. Jews wants “to live under Jewish law”; Marxists want “no more religions, cultural traditions, etc.” Again, that doesn’t make Marxism seem very impatient, since it’s a much harder task to wipe out all religions than to live under your own law.