Window Dressing which lends eventual victory to the idealogues.
Reader comment on item: Two Germans vs. Islamism

Submitted by Reuben Horne (Australia), Jan 17, 2006 at 04:27

Dr Pipes,

Heribert Rech and Uwe Schünemann have come up with proposals which whilst promising in so far as they constitute an acknowledgement of the existence of a problem are unlikely to solve said problem. Once again they involve expending additional resources in policing the Islamic population - another futile attempt to partition the radicals from the these so called decent moderate muslims. Does Rech seriously expect radicals to own up to being radicals and state their views openly. One of the most open Islamist clerics in Australia lied to get into the country, openly recruits for the Iraqi insurgency and lives off social security payments at Taxpayers expense. Many in the forum have stated over an extensive period of time Muslims are all part of the same hostile alien body politic, the same organism seeking to consume the host. The mission statement of the Muslim community remains that of capturing the body politic and turning it against its own civilians. An unholy wind spurs them forward in this quest in so far as the west's body politics have all but turned against their own citizens in many ways already.

In Australia the reality of an ageing population has seen a raising of the age one must reach before attaining a pension and piecemeal attempts to raise the flagging birth rate of a lifestyle obsessed public. In their struggle to maintain funds for ineffectual social programs the state governments have turned to seizing the assets in the possession of incapacitated people depriving their relatives of prospective inheritances in order to fill their coffers. To justify it they commission "experts" to write reports citing damning levels of abuse within families. They then establish commissions to engage in McCarthyistic inqueries into the private lives of individuals that operate outside rules of evidence. A measure which hearkens the death knell of the beleaguered Rule of Law in our society.

But the Rule of Law suffered enough damage with the advent of multiculturalism. In the aftermath of the Cronulla riots the state Labour Government of NSW was called to give cause as to why it had pursued the predominantly Anglo Celtic rioters (charging some 500) and not one of the Lebanese Muslim Youths who had participated in revenge attacks in which extensive vandalism and several incidents of serious bodily harm occurred. They cited a lack of evidence - I cite a lack of fortitude. Thus we remain culturally sensative but ostensibly lawless. The state preaches to its citizens but lacks the will to protect them.

One wonders what kernel of wisdom the fools that preside over this fracas have reference to in order to justify their purile maladministration of our formerly great nations. A friend of mine a rather fashionable dilletente who has taken to reading and listening to philosophers who base most of their learning on Seneca provided me with a rare insight into the mind of the modern so called "enlightened" person. The first proposition that an administrator has reference to is a commitment to diversity based firmly on the proposition that all cultures are basically equal. This is specious indeed - what of cultures that practice cannibalism and still occupy the dark corners of our planet? What of the culture of northern Pakistan where clans square off against eachother by raping a woman from the other clan by way of revenge irrespective of the woman's part in the malfeasence that is being addressed? Doubt not that this idiocy is widespread for one must swear to believe in and uphold these principles in order to get a job in the public service of any state in Australia.

The failure of this proposition causes most liberals to turn to an equally self deletorious idea that it isn't appropriate to relate to entire cultural groups but individuals within those groups. That ideology is therefore inconsequential or is "Macro bullcrap" as my friend so eloquently described it. Several errors in thinking underly this second proposition. Firstly group behaviour has always been demonstrably different to the behaviour of individuals that make up said groups in social science terms. This discrepancy between individual and group behaviour is usually a negative one favoring the individual - for example if a group spots an old lady falling down diffusion of responsability across it tends to mean noone will act expecting someone else to do so. A lone individual on the other hand is more likely to render aid. Consider then the actions of a muslim alone versus a group of muslims.

Secondly an individuals personal social affability is rarely a good barometer of their political ideation and its consequences. Hitler was a nice guy superficially, so was Stalin to all those who knew him and so is Osama Bin Laden to those that have met him westerners or otherwise. Before the actions of these individuals led to the disasterous losses of human life that they have generated there was no reliable way of feeling them out on a one to one human basis to figure out what might eventuate from their future conduct. Examining their ideology however would have been (and is) instructive it could have told us what to expect. One could not for example judge all Nazis by Oscar Schindler of Schindler's list.

Thirdly it represents the culmination of the disasterous flatulent humanist banality that is Wilsonism (named after the naive American President who founded the failed League of Nations after the First World War). This is the belief that all conflict simply spans from misunderstanding. No two peoples understand eachother better than the Israelis and the Palestineans, no two peoples understand eachother better than the Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland. As if to confirm my suspicions of my friend entertaining this logical flaw stated all my fears span from ignorance and if I were to work with a Muslim (I already have) or live as one (I wont) then all my fears and suspicions would be instantly allayed.

The final pillar of pro-Islamic anti-Western liberal faith is the assertion that the west is essentially evil. To the extent to which the liberal's themselves represent a part of the west I am prepared to agree with them. No other culture would allow such a sore to fester unlanced nor grant it public funding to propogate itself. We are to therefore take responsability for problems our industry has generated that we could not rationally have been expected to predict when we started generating them. We are also expected to endure the slings and arrows of reverse colonialism when the people we supposedly persecuted enter our countries and go about the business of persecuting us though we are not the people who inflicted said evils only their descendents (and therefore not bound to repay the debt by international law).

An lolly bin of issues get thrown into this final liberal fallacy - arms deals with the offending powers (one wonders why if in creating monsters like Saddam Hussein we are therefore morally prevented from tearing them down - one would have thought that this would only increase our responsability to do so). Also there are empty church congregations, high rates of marriage failure, low birth rates, high suicide rates all of which are problems that the liberals themselves have contributed to in no small part and yet they use the facts to label us no better than those who call us enemy. So therefore we are to lay down and die or accept the reality of social evolution that we lack the capacity to direct. This denies us the ability to direct and determine our own futures - to control our environment - the very forte that defines the human being and elevates him above the animals he shares the planet with.

I say unequivocally /no/ to this and all these other liberal articles of faith. But the role of the stormcrow is rarely easy especially after the storm has arrived and the crow is proven correct. Don't expect to be patted on the back for proving everyone else is stupid.
Cordially,
Reuben Horne.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.